Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Public Transport (London)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future co-ordination of public transport services in the London area.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The White Paper, "Public Transport in London" —Cmnd. 9004—was published on 26 July 1983.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the White Paper contained no mention of the scheme for old-age pensioners' travel on buses and tubes? Does he recall that that scheme was introduced individually by boroughs, but taken over by the GLC and administered by it under both political parties? If the GLC is abolished will it not put the scheme at risk, since there is no guarantee of equivalent finance for an equivalent standard of free pass?

Mr. Ridley: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that the London Boroughs Association, at its meeting last Wednesday, announced that it would assume responsibility for the existing GLC scheme for

concessionary fares. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to join me in welcoming that and in heavily condemning the GLC for the ridiculous scare stories that it put out on this matter.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and ask him whether the new authority will be able to bring about some uniformity in travel concessions in London and in those other parts of the country that will be served by that authority?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I shall do my best to help him in all the many transport problems that he will raise with me. In answer to his question, the London boroughs will take over the scheme, and I hope that they will be able to improve it. However, we are rather jumping ahead, because it will be some time before they actually assume responsibility.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister say how the new proposed London regional transport authority will be allowed to set its expenditure levels? Is he aware that on the basis of the Government's approach to other local authority spending it is likely that there will be a cut of at least a half in public transport spending in London?

Mr. Ridley: We are still considering the final details, but no major change in the level of subsidy is intended. It will come partly direct from the Government and partly perhaps from a rate precept which will pass through the Government to the new LRT. The details will be made plain to the hon. Gentleman when the legislation is published.

Mr. Eggar: Is it not quite outrageous that the GLC has been using ratepayers' money to mount this propaganda battle to scare our old-age pensioners? Is it not another justification for the abolition of the GLC?

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is outrageous. It is a complete waste of ratepayers' money, and it is particularly obnoxious in that it involves trying to frighten elderly people.

Mr. Cohen: On the matter of pensioners' free travel passes, is the Minister aware that "pursuit" — in his words—by the London Boroughs Association is a long


way from a guarantee for the scheme? Will he give an absolute guarantee that London pensioners' free travel passes will not be taken away?

Mr. Ridley: I do not remember using the word "pursuit"; I merely quoted what the London boroughs had decided. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased to hear that news and would welcome it in the spirit in which it was meant.

Railways (Scotland)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for further electrification of railways in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The British Railways Board has sent us an outline appraisal of electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Newcastle, and I understand that it is considering various schemes in the Glasgow area in conjunction with Strathclyde passenger transport executive.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that the British Railways Board has for some time been looking to electrification of the line from Edinburgh to London? When will he give a decision on that, as it will bring considerable employment to the area and make the railways and industry in the north-east and Scotland more efficient?

Mr. Mitchell: I understand the attraction of the scheme to the hon. Gentleman, but the Government must first see detailed proposals from the board.

Mr. Henderson: Has British Rail made any proposals for electrification of the lines north of Edinburgh?

Mr. Mitchell: We have received no such proposals.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Government consider early electrification of the entire route from King's Cross to Edinburgh, as no single act would give more confidence to the rail industry north of the border than an early decision on that?

Mr. Mitchell: The whole question of east coast electrification is bound up with British Rail's strategy for inter-city, of which the Government are currently awaiting details.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the fourth Minister to have been presented with proposals on electrification? Will he ensure that a decision is made, as British Rail has said on innumerable occasions that the most significant investment decision required is for rail electrification of the east coast main line?

Mr. Mitchell: The ball is in British Rail's court. The Government are awaiting the board's further proposals on the strategy for inter-city. When we receive them, we shall be in a position to make progress.

Lorry Routes (London)

Dr. Twinn: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for taking over the establishment and supervision of lorry routes when the Greater London Council's responsibilities are reallocated.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am now seeking the views of

local authorities and others about our proposals for reallocating highway and traffic responsibilities in London. The arrangements adopted for handling London's lorry traffic generally will need to cater for the widespread importance and impact of freight movement in and around London.

Dr. Twinn: Whatever the Minister's final decision, will she give proper weight to the needs for commerce and industry in London and avoid the doctrinaire response of the Greater London Council in the Wood report?

Mrs. Chalker: Industry and commerce must have full consideration in any scheme involving lorry ban proposals. I agree with my hon. Friend that a blanket ban as proposed by the GLC prior to the Wood report would not be conducive to employment in London. The GLC should take careful note of what it would do to London employment and industry if it proceeded with a complete ban. Careful planning and full consultation with the boroughs must take place in devising lorry controls.

Road Construction and Traffic Management (London)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for new road construction work and traffic management in the Greater London area.

Mrs. Chalker: The Department has a substantive trunk road programme to benefit Greater London over the next few years as the M25 nears completion. Traffic management is currently a GLC responsibility. Our proposals for reallocating highway and traffic management responsibilities in London were published on 7 October and I am holding consultations about them.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no valid reason why the north London lorry box concept should not be implemented immediately by the GLC, and that the two-year delay since the scheme was ready to be implemented by the previous GLC fails to benefit anyone? Will she also bear in mind that if the GLC is incapable of taking this responsibility many people would wish to see the responsibility removed from the GLC?

Mrs. Chalker: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, when the idea was put up it seemed sensible and the Department considered that it should be implemented. Matters have changed a little, but I look for commonsense solutions—not blanket bans—which will benefit all the boroughs concerned and not simply pass the problem of lorry control from one borough to the next.

Mr. Higgins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her well-deserved promotion. When responsibility for traffic management is taken from the GLC, will she review the need for many bus routes which seem to be slowing not only private vehicles but buses?

Mrs. Chalker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I shall do my best in my job.
Traffic management schemes in London are many and varied. It is high time that we had the best schemes for the major routes in terms of both public transport and private traffic. That will be our strategy for central London.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I join in congratulating the hon. Lady on her promotion, but ask with incredulity how


someone of her intelligence can believe that the involvement of three separate bodies dealing with roads in London—the Department, the London boroughs and a joint voluntary committee, which has yet to be set up— can possibly be more efficient than a properly planned integrated system.

Mrs. Chalker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
The three-tier system of local government in relation to transport was criticised by the Select Committee. The Government propose that the Department will make the strategic decisions and that the boroughs, which already join together on a voluntary basis in planning many routes, will continue to do that. Two are better than three.

Serpell Report

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce his decisions on the Serpell report.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the Serpell report.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has had on the Serpell report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has today written to the chairman of the British Railways Board setting out the Government's objectives for the railways. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend will make a statement about this later today.
We have received a large number of representations about the Serpell report from hon. Members, the British Railways Board, the railway trade unions and others.

Dr. Marek: If the Minister agrees that both roads and railways have a part to play in serving the country, will he give an assurance that the development of the railway system will not suffer as a result of the building and development of the road system?

Mr. Mitchell: The railway system will be maintained according to the level of consumer demand. That is the overriding factor in the prosperity and success of the railways.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister support bodies, such as Bradford district council, which oppose the butchery of the railway system? Will he accept that expansion of the railway system is vitally important in combating unemployment and in promoting economic recovery, tourism and other social factors? Will he also have a word with the courteous Neanderthal who has recently been appointed his boss and ensure that even courteous Neanderthals are prepared to consign the Serpell report to the wastebin of history?

Mr. Mitchell: It is unfortunate when hon. Members use inflammatory language such as
butchery of the railway system
in referring to the Government's position as it frightens many people unnecessarily, especially the elderly who have retired and rely upon the railway line in the district in which they live. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no programme of major route closures in mind.

Mr. Kirkwood: When the Minister receives views on the Serpell report from representative bodies, will he note the views of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who said on 25 August when opening the Glasgow railcentre that the Government's view was that there would be no substantial cuts in the rail network?

Mr. Mitchell: I repeat what I have already said. The Government have no programme of major route closures in mind.

Mr. Fry: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in determining his conclusions on the Serpell report that some of the hysterical opposition was deliberately whipped up pre-publication by the public relations advisors to British Rail, as was admitted in a recent article in The Sunday Times? Will he judge this issue on what is the best service to consumers rather than on any sectional interest, be it British Rail or any other?

Mr. Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend makes his statement, I think that my hon. Friend will be well satisfied.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give an assurance that when the Secretary of State discusses the Serpell report and its recommendations with the chairman of British Rail the discussion of Government policy will not be restricted to the options contained in the report but that the Government will constructively and positively consider considerable public investment in the electrification of the railway to serve the next century?

Mr. Mitchell: Investment in the railways depends upon the projects concerned. If a viable proposition is proposed by British Rail, we shall be interested.

Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend reject wild allegations by Opposition Members about the butchery of the railways? Does my hon. Friend agree that, post-Serpell, the railways are being kept intact? Does he agree also that perhaps the Serpell report has done some damage by confusing options with proposals in the public's mind? In that context, may we have an assurance that services in the far west of England, for example, are absolutely safe, as has already been made clear in previous statements?

Mr. Mitchell: The diagrams attached to the Serpell report were for illustrative purposes. They were not part of the proposals by Serpell, in spite of what has been said in the campaign of distortion. They are not proposals by British Rail or by the Government. I am happy to give the assurance that no proposals which involve railway lines in my hon. Friend's constituency are in front of me.

Mr. Stott: I shall try not to use words such as "butchery", but will the Minister confirm what his predecessors have told the House—that the Government do not intend to reduce the existing 12,000 track miles? Does that remain the Government's policy today?

Mr. Mitchell: "We cannot expect that the network existing at the time of the 1974 Railway Act should remain unchanged for all time." The hon. Gentleman will recognise that extract from Labour's Programme 1982. We agree on this matter. There are no proposals for a savage cut in the route network.

Liverpool Docks

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has plans to safeguard the future of Liverpool docks.

Mr. David Mitchell: I was very glad that last month the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company was able to announce its first profit since 1978; the future of the port depends on whether those who work there can continue this success by maintaining and improving the service which they offer to their customers.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that if Britain is to have free ports we must have one in Merseyside for the docks there to survive? This is especially true since the enterprise zone system is attracting industry from the docklands area. Will the Minister at least subsidise the docks to the extent that Hamburg subsidises its port by accepting responsibility for dredging and lighting and for the streets and highways?

Mr. Mitchell: I see no point in subsidising a port which is making a profit. Free ports are not the responsibility of the Department of Transport.

Mr. Hill: Should not the Government support the successful ports rather than poor business, because the successful ports are proving to be worth while in terms of imports and exports?

Mr. Mitchell: So long as my hon. Friend does not suggest that we provide financial support, I am with him. Since the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is making a profit, the question of support does not arise.

Mr. Alton: Bearing in mind that the deep water container port at Seaforth is successful, will the Minister examine the proposal by the Liverpool university study group, supported by a number of Merseyside local authorities, for a barrage to be erected across the Mersey to provide further deep water facilities, a third estuarial crossing and much needed work for people in the construction industry?

Mr. Mitchell: I am prepared to consider any proposals by the hon. Gentleman if he cares to write to me.

Public Transport (London)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had on his proposals to reorganise public transport in London.

Mrs. Chalker: Our White Paper "Public Transport in London", published on 26 July, invited views from all concerned. I am in the process of discussing with the passenger transport bodies which have written to us various points which they have raised.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister publish the details of the replies received as a result of the consultative procedures? How many pensioners and pensioners organisations have approached her to express their concern about the consequences of the proposals for free passes?

Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening when my right hon. Friend said clearly that the London Boroughs Association at its meeting on 19 October, confirmed in a letter to my Department on 20 October, said:

The Association considers on the setting up of LRT the boroughs should assume responsibility for concessionary fares on the basis of the existing scheme.
There is no danger to pensioners passes. It is high time that the GLC stopped the scare stories which it is using at ratepayers' expense to resist its own abolition, and realised that the responsibility for pensioners passes has been taken on by the boroughs. They have stated that clearly.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, whoever finally is responsible for public transport in London, there is an acute need for capital investment? Will she take comfort from the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) —the former Secretary of State no less—now regards calls for carefully costed capital projects as desirable, responsible and sensible?

Mrs. Chalker: I do take note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) says. I also note the sensible plans which the London Transport Executive has put forward on a three-year basis, which, of course, include plans for capital investment.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that for many families in the London area the top priority is better integration between the services provided by London Transport and those provided by British Rail? What consultations is the Minister having about that aspect?

Mrs. Chalker: I am happy to say that I have had a number of consultations with the passenger bodies representing London Transport and British Rail in the London and the south-east area. At the top of my priority list I put better service to the traveller in London because that traveller has suffered time and time again from the vagaries of the GLC's doctrinaire policies, which must stop.

Traffic Management (London)

Mr. Tracey: asked the Secretary of State for Transport which body will be responsible, when the Greater London Council is abolished, for traffic matters.

Mrs. Chalker: Our consultation paper seeks views by the end of January on the detailed proposals about those traffic matters which might become the responsibility of individual boroughs and about those which need to be handled on a wider basis.

Mr. Tracey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her promotion. In the context of the consultation paper may I focus her mind on the south circular road, since it causes such chaos for the residents and damage to businesses in south London? May we be assured that the Government will look carefully at where the responsibility for developing that collection of signposts will finally rest?

Mrs. Chalker: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be looking carefully at the future of the south circular road. He will note from paragraph 13 of the paper published on 10 October by my Department that the first individual road mentioned to come under the Secretary of State's responsibility is the A205 south circular road.

Mr. Maples: Is my hon. Friend aware that under its present powers the GLC has instructed its officers to report by the end of the year on the implementation of a lorry ban in London? Will my hon. Friend examine those powers


and the powers of her Department to ensure that no hasty or premature decision does irreparable carnage to the city's economy?

Mrs. Chalker: If there were any proposals for inflicting irreparable damage we should not hesitate to step in. I hope that that will not be necessary and that the GLC will see that there is no point in making a proposal for one part of London which adversely affects a neighbouring part.

British Rail (Finance)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards finance for British Rail.

Mr. Ridley: I have today written to the chairman of the British Railways Board, giving him guidance on the Government's policies and, with permission, I will make a statement about this later in the afternoon. As to the current year, the central Government grant to the passenger railway under the public service obligation will be £819 million, subject to certain adjustment factors. The full details of this settlement are given in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) today.

Mr. Adley: Would it be more convenient to wait until the statement, or should I ask my question now?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to ask his question now.

Mr. Adley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, but advise him that some of us will be keeping a wary eye on him in his dealings with the railways. I wish to ask him a simple question: does he believe that a small, crowded, industrial nation such as Britain needs a modern railway system? If he does, when will he provide the finance for British Rail to provide the system?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I congratulate him on a good try, which I hope results in further opportunities to question me later. The Government believe in a railway system of the sort that he described. The statement that I have made provides the necessary funds for that. I shall have more to say about that matter later this afternoon.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way in which Britain could tackle the unemployment problem would be for British Rail to receive much more generous funding? Is he aware that in my constituency, and in north-east Wales generally, there are proposals to run down the services provided by British Rail, even though that area is greatly afflicted by unemployment? Will he bear that in mind when he makes his statement later?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that additional finance for British Rail or any other nationalised industry means additional taxation, which in turn is likely to mean a reduction in employment in some other part of the economy.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the Secretary of State had time to study British Rail's corporate plan, which was published in August 1983? It illustrates the large savings

that have been made by British Rail, on which it should be congratulated. Does the five-year plan published in that document accord with the right hon. Gentleman's views?

Mr. Ridley: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating British Rail on the savings that it has so far made. He will know from the plan and his knowledge of the industry that British Rail is fully aware that it can make even greater savings. That will be the subject of what I have to say later.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend's response to British Rail cover the proposals for electrification that are now with the Department?

Mr. Ridley: There is only one specific proposal for electrification before the Department. I wish to study it carefully and personally. I hope to make a decision as soon as possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a statement later and I shall bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called during Question Time.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current position regarding the proposed Channel tunnel.

Mr. Ridley: I hope to receive very shortly the report of the group of British and French banks on private financing of the various schemes that have been advanced for a fixed link.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will favour twin rail tunnels of 6m diameter, and not the elaborate bridge and tunnel combined proposal by the elaborate Ian MacGregor?

Mr. Ridley: All possible propositions and designs are still open. The banks' report will comment on the cost and financing difficulties associated with each project. We must await that report before forming any judgment.

Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the many groups that have put forward various proposals feel an urgent need for those alternatives to be narrowed down so that they can put more effort into finding the necessary backing for their schemes?

Mr. Ridley: There will have to be a rationalisation of the possible proposals at some time. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that much depends on the ability of the private sector to finance any scheme. We must, therefore, tackle finance first.

Mr. Anderson: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is firm Government policy that in no circumstances will any public money be at risk, either directly by subvention or indirectly by some form of insurance policy?

Mr. Ridley: We must await the report of the banks. The Government have made their position clear, and there has been no departure from that position.

London (Regional Transport Authority)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how it is intended that the proposed appointed regional transport authority for London should be funded; and if it will have powers to levy rates.

Mrs. Chalker: Grants to London regional transport will be paid direct by the Secretary of State. Like those elsewhere, London's ratepayers will need to make some contribution to the cost of their local transport services, and possible mechanisms for this are currently being discussed with local authorities.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the Government, who have been dedicated to removing quangos from the British system, are now contemplating establishing an unelected quango that will charge rates to London ratepayers who will have no redress against that body?

Mrs. Chalker: We have an elected Government with more than 80 elected Members of Parliament from the Greater London area. London regional transport will be a management body that will properly manage the way in which the transport provision for this great city should be organised. Back-Bench Members of Parliament will leave us in no doubt about their views on the financing of London regional transport.

British Rail

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what topics he discussed with the chairman of British Rail during the recess.

Mr. Ridley: I have discussed a number of railway matters with the new chairman of British Rail, including the Government's objectives for the railways, on which I shall be making a statement later today.

Mr. Fisher: Did not the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of British Rail the one problem which, above all else, should concern them both? Is it not true that the paltry £819 million cannot possibly provide sufficient finance to improve the service to the general public?

Mr. Ridley: I have had time to meet the chairman of British Rail only once, and on that occasion he did not raise that matter with me. Therefore, I presume that he feels that he can live with that grant for the current year.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a decision on the London to Hastings railway line has been awaited for some months? During the recess did he take the opportunity to discuss with the chairman of British Rail the future electrification of that important railway link between London and the south coast? If not, will he undertake to do so without delay?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to state that there is no question of that line being discontinued, as was suggested in a recent newspaper article. I ask him to give me a little time to study the problem. I have been in office for only one week. I promise him that I shall try to make a decision as soon as possible, because I realise the urgency.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figure of £819 million that he announced this afternoon is £40 million less than that which the British Rail corporate plan suggested would be the minimum necessary to survive the next 12 months? How does he square that?

Mr. Ridley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had realised the good news in those figures. In accordance with the remarks of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr.

Ross), British Rail has made improvements in its cost and productivity, which is reflected in the PSO grant. I am sure that is something that the whole House will welcome.

Privatisation

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the schemes of privatisation of transport interests which have taken place since May 1979 and the schemes under consideration by the Government.

Mr. Ridley: Since 1979 the National Freight Corporation and British Transport Docks have both been privatised. Other disposals include British Rail's hovercraft and hotel interests, International Aeradio Ltd. and much of British Airways' hotel investment, as well as long leases on most motorway service areas.
We have made clear our commitment to introduce private capital into British Airways, BAA and CAA airports, the National Bus Company and Sealink.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the private entrepreneurs who have taken advantage of the privatisation of bus services not only confine their operations to the most lucrative routes but appear to show a marked preference for buying foreign-made vehicles? Will he therefore take steps to stop these pirates undermining the job prospects of workers in the British coachbuilding industry, for example at Alexanders of Falkirk in my constituency?

Mr. Ridley: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, on the contrary, in many of the privatisation there has been a remarkable improvement in the service to the consumer, in the economic performance of the unit and in the fortunes of those who work in them. For example, in the National Freight Consortium, shares which the workers bought for £1 are now worth £3·40, and the service has been improved. The hon. Gentleman must put his question about Scottish buses to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the company that bought much of British Rail hotels, Virani Brothers, has utterly refused to meet any of its obligations in relation to pension rights and trade union conditions? If the attempts to get this remedied are frustrated by the shunting around of these hotels from one company to another, what will the Minister do to ensure that these matters are put right?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers are not responsible for the pension funds of private sector companies. They are not really responsible, except indirectly, for the pension funds of nationalised industries. It must be accepted by the Opposition that these are matters of private negotiation between the two sides of industry, once privatisation has taken place.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Solicitors and Barristers

Mr. Bell: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce measures to merge the professions of solicitors and banisters into a single profession.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): No, Sir.

Mr. Bell: I appreciate the brevity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer but if the Government are as determined as they say they are to attack the problem of restrictive practices and to protect the interests of the consumer, should he not direct his attention to the fusion of the legal professions in the interests of the consumer, to the detriment of restrictive practices and to the benefit of all those who have recourse to the law during their lives?

The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Benson Commission, which unanimously decided against fusion.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that to fuse the two professions would do nothing to aid the public in terms of costs or delay?

The Attorney-General: The Royal Commission, which went into the matter in great detail, heard a great deal of evidence. It said that in terms of costs the total amount of work would remain broadly the same and that the intervention of a barrister with deeper specialist experience and an independent view could often assist in early settlement. The point was considered by the Royal Commission, which concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that fusion would materially improve the situation.

Legal Aid

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General what is the current annual cost of legal aid in (a) criminal cases and (b) civil cases.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The net cost of legal aid in the most recent financial year, 1982–83, was as follows:


(a) criminal cases
£106·4 million.


(b) civil cases
£68 million.


In addition, the net cost of the legal advice and assistance scheme in the same year was £30·4 million.

Mr. Dubs: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the recently published report on the survey into the grant of legal aid in magistrates' courts shows that there are still wide divergences in the rates of refusal from one court to another? What action does the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to take to give all applicants for legal aid an equal chance regardless of the area in which they happen to live?

The Solicitor-General: I agree that the survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers does give rise to anxiety about the discrepancies in rates of refusal of legal aid. Section 6 of the Legal Aid Act 1982 will soon be in force. It will give recourse to criminal legal aid committees in respect of refusals of legal aid from magistrates' courts. In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will be giving thought to ways in which it may be possible to bring the criteria on which legal aid should be granted to the knowledge of courts concerned and to explain them more fully.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House of the cost of the new type of legal aid now in operation in Northern Ireland, where murderers and those guilty of bombing have become "supergrasses" and have a large amount of money paid to them so that they can avoid drawing on legal aid?

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is answering a written question on the implications of the "supergrass" controversy later today, but the broad principles on which legal aid is granted or withheld remain the same in all cases.

Mr. Archer: Does not the survey confirm what has already been said on the subject by the Benson Commission, which was quoted with approval by the Attorney-General in another context a few moments ago? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since that report was published in October 1979 it has never once been debated in the House and has never even been the subject of a statement? Is it not high time for a statement informing the House of the reaction of the Government to the various proposals in that report?

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has indicated recently the respects in which he has already given effect to certain recommendations of the Benson Commission and has set out other recommendations of the Benson Commission to which further consideration is being given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct when he says that the Benson Commission did draw attention to discrepancies in the rates of refusal of legal aid. When my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor took charge of legal aid in 1980 he set in train the inquiry which has resulted in the report to which reference has been made today.

Ms. Harman: asked the Attorney-General if Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the new contribution regulations on criminal legal aid will not penalise the wife and children of a defendant.

The Solicitor-General: The regulations to be made under the Legal Aid Act 1982 will provide for the resources of married couples normally to be aggregated in assessing a defendent's liability to contribute towards the cost of his legal aid. This reflects the principle of the general law, which imposes a duty of mutual support on spouses.

Ms. Harman: Is not child benefit paid out of public funds to benefit the child? Therefore is it not wrong to regard it as something that can be taken into account when assessing a man's legal aid contribution? That w ill mean that, instead of being spent on children, child benefit will be spent on the legal defence of a man who is charged? Is that not wrong?

The Solicitor-General: The general principle by which the means of spouses are aggregated is of long standing. It is embraced in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, which was enacted by the previous Labour Government, and goes back further than that. It is right that there should be a discretionary power to relieve the operation of this principle in a proper case, but the broad principle is that the assets of the family as a whole should be taken into account. If we were to derogate from that it would be right to stop the system by which deductions are made from the assessable income of a husband to take account of his obligation to support his wife.

Mr. Archer: How will this work in practice? If contribution orders are to be enforced against the spouse who is charged, but are to be calculated additionally on the resources of the other spouse, what will happen if the husband applies for legal aid but the wife refuses to make


her resources available to the husband? Will she be compelled to do so, and, if not, will he be expected to pay over money which has never been in his possession?

Mr. Skinner: That sounds like a barrister's question.

The Solicitor-General: Enforcement proceedings are taken against the spouse to be charged. It becomes a matter thereafter of considering what the reasons are for the failure to pay if there has been a failure to pay. If there is good reason, which does not carry with it culpability on the part of the spouse who is in arrears, the court will have a right within its discretion, to make an exceptional order. That is a sensible way of going about it.

Mr. Skinner: That sounds like a barrister's answer.

The Solicitor-General: That must come as a rare and beneficial surprise to the hon. Gentleman, for he does not hear many answers of that sort. This has to be looked at in a sensible way and the courts will wish to do equity and justice, using their common sense, as they generally do.

Law Commission

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor last met the chairman of the Law Commission.

The Attorney-General: Three weeks ago, on Monday 3 October 1983.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Attorney-General realise the increasing problems for leaseholders of flats and that legislation to enable them to enfranchise and extend their leases is long overdue? Will he urge the Law Commission to speed up those things that are preliminary to what might be a Government Bill to enfranchise and extend leasehold flat leases?

The Attorney-General: I am sure that everyone knows of the hon. Gentleman's acute interest in this matter. There are certain preliminary matters that have to be resolved and the Law Commission's first report on the subject of rights appurtenant to land will recommend reform of the present law of positive and restrictive covenants. The general form that the Commission's proposals are likely to take is outlined in its last annual report. It is hoped that the report on this subject wil be published early next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

World Bank

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks he has had during the Summer Adjournment with the World Bank on the debt problems of developing nations.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington on 27 and 28 September. Officials in my Department have had many contacts with the World Bank.

Mr. Fisher: So what practical steps will the Government take to help reflate world demand to increase developing countries' exports so that they can service and ultimately reduce their international debts?

Mr. Raison: The Government have given maximum support to the IMF. I believe that the actions taken by the

IMF in conjunction both with the creditor countries and the debtor countries have proved valuable. Of course, the problem remains a substantial one, but progress is being made.

Mr. Forman: In Ministers' talks with the World Bank, have the Government pressed the American Administration to be generous in the next IDA replenishment?

Mr. Raison: We have indeed done so and I hope that that will have effect in due course.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister accept that not only is the IMF scratching about for money, but the World Bank itself is almost on the verge of bankruptcy? Will he also accept that one of the main reasons why the poorest countries in the world are not getting the assistance that many Opposition Members would like to see is that most of the money coming from the IMF and some of that from the World Bank finishes up in the pockets of bankers representing middle-ranking countries, which are up to their necks in debt because of over-expansion and Americanisation during certain times in the past five or six years?

Mr. Raison: We are doing all that we can to ensure that the next replenishment of IDA is an effective one, but the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks seem to bear little relation to the facts.

Poor Countries (Investment)

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has for promoting private investment in the poorer countries.

Mr. Raison: There are a variety of measures already. My officials are considering with other Departments whether there is more we can usefully do on the subject. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions we shall certainly examine them carefully.

Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the promotion of private investment in poorer countries is a major part of his responsibility and that he proposes to take the lead in Whitehall in co-ordinating policy in this regard?

Mr. Raison: Yes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this matter. The Government are working — effectively, I believe—in this respect. We have been responsible for the negotiations of investment promotion and protection agreements, which can be of considerable value. I believe that developing countries would often do well to rely less on short-term bank loans and more on direct private investment.

Mr. George Robertson: If the Government can shrug off their sustained complacency in this matter they will surely realise that private capital can only scratch the deep problems besetting the poorest countries of the world. Surely only international action by Governments can get to the root of the problems, which are caused by ludicrously high interest rates and low commodity prices. When will the Government wake up to that fact?

Mr. Raison: The Government are in no sense complacent about this matter. I believe that private investment can play a useful part, but, as I have already


made clear this afternoon, we also recognise the great importance of what the IMF and the World Bank are doing, and we are playing our part in that.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the Overseas Development Administration budget for 1983–84 and 1984–85 is applicable to expenditure in the Falkland islands.

Mr. Raison: It would be premature to give precise forecasts of expenditure in the Falkland islands in 1983–84 and 1984–85, since details of activities to be supported have not yet been finalised. But I expect the balance of the rehabilitation grant of £15 million to be spent in the current year and a substantial proportion of the £31 million development grant in the next two or three years. Estimated expenditure in 1983–84 to dare is approximately £3 million.

Mr. Foulkes: How does the Minister justify the misappropriation of large parts of the development budget to the Falkland islands, while, at the same time, the Government are cutting British aid to some of the poorest countries in the world where people are starving to death?

Mr. Raison: It is quite untrue to talk about misappropriation of my programme to help the Falkland islands. They are among our dependencies, to whom we have a prior obligation anyway, and events last year will undoubtedly have reinforced that in the minds of the overwhelming majority in this country.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much greater public support in this country for aid to the Falkland islands than there is for continued aid to Zimbabwe, where air force officers acquitted by the courts are still imprisoned?

Mr. Raison: I do not intend to draw such a comparison, but I reiterate that aid to the Falklands is justified and necessary.

Commonwealth Development Corporation

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

Mr. Raison: I have no immediate plans for such a meeting, but I meet the chairman frequently.

Mr. Canavan: On the matter of the CDC involvement in the NGPI project at Agusan Del Sur in the Philippines, why did the British authorities exert pressure for the non-renewal of the contract of a British VSO worker who was investigating allegations of the violation of human rights in the area where CDC involvement is planned?

Mr. Raison: I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alton: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the CDC, will he also discuss the representations that Mr. Frank Judd of the VSO has made to many hon. Members about the organisation's fears and worries concerning the continuation of its programme? Will the hon. Gentleman also consider the possibility of removing full-cost fees for students from Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Raison: If I were to discuss those matters with the chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation he might think that I was out of my mind. They have nothing to do with him.

Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Minister meets the chairman of the CDC, will he draw to his attention the fact that hon. Members, while having a high regard for the CDC, will exercise the right to criticise individual projects if they feel that they are unworthy? Had we not done so, certain improvements in human rights in Mindanao would not have taken place.

Mr. Raison: Of course hon. Members have the right to discuss and to criticise. After all, it is a free country and a free House. I am prepared to accept that some of that discussion has been of value, but the important thing i s that the steps that are taken now are effective.

Mr. Moynihan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the safeguards built into the proposed oil palm development project in Loreto in the Philippines are not only unprecendented, but are recognised as being highly effective in safeguarding that potential project as a viable and important one for the CDC?

Mr. Raison: I know that my hon. Friend has just been out there to look at these matters on the ground. I am grateful to him for what he says.

Brandt Commission (Report)

Mr. Joan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on his response to the Brandt Commission report entitled "Common Crisis".

Mr. Raison: None, Sir.

Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is tremendous support in this country for the original Brandt report and for the supplementary report? Will he therefore use his best efforts inside the Government to reduce the massive arms expenditure in which the Government are involved in with the extra £10,000 million for Trident, and urge that we should devote more resources to helping the two-thirds of humanity who are suffering from poverty and want?

Mr. Raison: I am aware that there has been considerable support in this country for both the first and the second Brandt report. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that while I believe very strongly in the value of our aid programme, I also believe that this country has to be properly defended.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with international debt running at some £900 billion, all that has happened so far has merely papered over the cracks? Has not the time arrived when we should be looking at the possibility of a Bretton Woods style conference to make sure that we can help with the long-term problems of the world, which are getting worse by the day?

Mr. Raison: I am not yet persuaded that such a conference would necessarily be helpful. First, we should recognise the gravity of the problem, as my hon. Friend has expressed it. Secondly, we should recognise that our existing institutions have been working very hard and have had some considerable achievements in tackling the problem.

Maze Prison

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I shall, with permission Mr. Speaker, take this earliest possible opportunity to make a statement to the House on the escape from the Maze prison in Northern Ireland last month and on the action taken since then. I should add that because of official business in the United States of America later today, I am making this statement before those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I am grateful to him and to the House for allowing me to do so.
On 25 September, at approximately 2.45 pm, a number of Republican prisoners produced guns in H block 7 of the Maze prison. They overpowered prison officers and shot the officer in the block's central control room in the head. They put on the officers' uniforms. About an hour later, still in control of the block, prisoners took over a meal delivery van on its arrival, and the prison officer driver was forced at gunpoint to drive 38 of the prisoners to the main gate of the prison. On the way, the van passed through two manned gates without being searched. At the main gate the prisoners disembarked and a fight with prison staff ensued during which a number of prison officers received serious injuries and a prison officer was stabbed to death. I deeply regret his death, and know the whole House will join me in extending sympathy to his family. The prisoners opened the main gate, but the exit was immediately blocked by a prison officer's car. The 38 prisoners then sought to escape on foot and were chased by prison officers. As a number of the escaping prisoners were wearing prison officers' uniform and some of the prison officers were in civilian clothes, the Army sentry in the tower at the main gate could not clearly identify which individuals were prison officers and which were prisoners. He did, however, open fire and wound one escaping prisoner whom he had seen shoot a pursuing prison officer in the leg. Ten prisoners were quickly apprehended and returned to the prison. Immediately the alarm was given, the RUC and the Army instituted very extensive arrangements both in the immediate vicinity of the prison and more widely throughout the Province. Immediate contact was established with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland, who readily gave their full cooperation. Within the next few days a further nine escapers were recaptured, leaving 19 still unlawfully at large. The search for them continues unremittingly.
On the day following the escape, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I invited Sir James Hennessy, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, to conduct an inquiry into security arrangements at Her Majesty's prison, Maze, bearing on the escape on Sunday 25 September; to make relevant recommendations for the improvement of security at the prison; and to report to me as soon as possible.
Sir James is aided in his inquiry by a full team of inspectors and by other staff of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, numbering 10 in all. It is not yet possible to say when the report will be completed. The House will understand that the arrangements at the Maze are inevitably complex and there are a great many witnesses to be interviewed, some of whom are still recovering from injuries. However, I know that Sir James and his team are pursuing the task with urgency as well as with a view to

its being as thorough and searching as it can be. When the report is complete it is my intention to make public as full an account as possible of the matter consistent with the future security of the prison.
In parallel with the start of Sir James's inquiry, all governors of prisons in Northern Ireland immediately undertook urgent reviews of their security systems and procedures. Both in the Maze prison and elsewhere there has been additional searching of prisoners, cells, prison workshops and other areas. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army have assisted in searching prisons in line with long-established procedures. Certain additional physical security measures are being implemented, including the provision of protective screens for the control rooms of each H block in the Maze prison; and a more secure electronic locking system has been fitted to the main gate on a trial basis, which if found satisfactory will be linked to a specially constructed bullet-proof control post. Other security measures are also being taken.
The escape of so many prisoners and the killing of a prison officer represent a setback to law enforcement in Northern Ireland, at a time when terrorist organisations have been under increasing pressure. We are dealing with determined and violent men, and there can be no let-up in the measures that we are taking. The escape also adds to the already considerable difficulties in managing the prisons in Northern Ireland. I am anxious, in reporting to the House today, to indicate what action has been taken since the escape as well as to outline the facts of the incident as far as they can be established in advance of the Hennessy report. The House can be assured that we shall do everything possible to identify why things went wrong on 25 September, and will take all appropriate steps in the light of those findings.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches join the Secretary of State in extending sympathy to the family of the prison officer who met his death and to those others who were terribly injured. We thank the Secretary of State for making his statement and for the appointment of Sir James Hennessy to conduct an inquiry into security arrangements at Her Majesty's prison, Maze. I think that we should await the report before expressing our final views.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, on the face of it, the objective in building the Maze prison seems to have been eroded? I remind the House that it was built to end special category status, the compound system and the university of terrorism. No longer were prisoners to be segregated into their compounds, with free association, to do their teaching and plotting. They were to be kept in cellular accommodation in the legs of the H blocks. However, it seems from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that each of the H blocks is now reserved for groupings of prisoners, with a lot more association than was intended originally. We are back to the compound system and segregation. In my opinion this was asking for trouble if searches and other forms of security were not stepped up. I think that there are some people who pressed for this kind of segregation and who should keep their complaints to a minimum today.
If the Secretary of State decided to put all his bad eggs in one basket, could he say when H block 7 was last searched before the escape and how it was searched— that is important? If it was searched, what was found? Has


the right hon. Gentleman any idea in which countries the 19 escaped prisoners are? If so, is he receiving the full cooperation of those countries to secure the apprehension and return of the escapees to the British authorities? Finally, will he assure the House that, when it is received, the report will be debated?

Mr. Prior: Whether the report is debated is a matter for the House, but I shall make a full statement to the House when the report is received. I want it to be published in full, save for any matters that might raise security problems at the prisons.
We do not know the countries to which these people have fled. It is suspected that some are now in the South, but we do not know. All that I can say is that we have had the maximum co-operation from the Irish Government, and I have no doubt that they are as keen as we are to capture these prisoners. The block had been searched wing by wing. The last search of a wing took place two weeks before the escape.
A number of the blocks are now segregated, because of the troubles that there have been, and also because there are many more Republican than Loyalist prisoners. The block in question was unsegregated until the Loyalist problems of October 1982. Since then it has been a Republican block. I believe that there are still seven wings in the Maze prison which contain both Protestants and Catholics. We shall do all that we can to keep as many mixed wings as possible.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State admit that the chief inspector's inquiry will be limited to considering the responsibility of prison officers and will take no account of the changes in the Northern Ireland Office's prison policies—which have already been referred to by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)— particularly those made under the regime of Lord Gowrie?
Is not the inquiry further limited by the requirement that prison officers' statements must be made in writing, and signed, with no guarantee of absolute confidentiality?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the financial considerations that led to delays even in the follow-up operations—which were not as immediate as the statement suggests—will also be excluded from the inquiry?

Mr. Prior: The duty helicopter was over the prison within 10 minutes of the alarm being given, and the brigade commander and the Chief Constable were in their operations room within 20 minutes of the alarm being given. It is therefore unfair to say that there was any delay in commencing the operations. The Chief Constable and the GOC will report to me on these matters in the near future.
Sir James Hennessy will have an absolute right to report on all aspects of the prison regime, including developments during the past two years I await his report with interest.
Following the end of the hunger strike, increased association between the wings was allowed in certain circumstances, but as the segregation policy pursued by both Loyalist and Republican prisoners resulted in the protest of the Loyalists in October 1982 there has been no free association in the block in question. That matter therefore does not arise. Any of these matters may, of course, be considered.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On behalf of my colleagues, I should like to associate myself with the expression of sympathy to Prison Officer Ferris's wife and family.
Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that all the facts uncovered by Sir James Hennessy's inquiry will be made public? Why were the breaks in the perimeter fence, which were reported to the Northern Ireland Office before the escape, not dealt with? Can the Secretary of State say whether the steps that he has now taken will prevent guns from getting into the hands of prisoners? If no guns had got into the prison, the gaol break would not have occurred. Why were all the watchtowers not manned? Was it to save money that dummy soldiers were placed in some of the watchtowers? As this was the greatest gaol break in British history, does the Secretary of State not consider that there should be ministerial resignations?

Mr. Prior: In the past few weeks the hon. Gentleman has made a number of accusations, very few of which bear any relation to the truth. That includes his reference to watchtowers not being manned and to dummies in the watchtowers. There have never been dummies in the watchtowers at the Maze prison.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Sir James' report?

Mr. Prior: There are no breaks in the proper fence of the prison. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a car park which has some protection but which in any case forms no part of the defences of the prison. All these matters will be considered by Sir James Hennessy and included in his report.
On the question of resignations, I have made my position abundantly clear and I shall stick to it.

Mr. Stephen Ross: We on the Liberal Benches express our condolences to the family of the prison officer who lost his life. From my personal knowledge of prison officers in general, and in particular those in Northern Ireland, I believe that they are upright men doing a fairly lousy job with distinction.
Will the attention of Sir James Hennessy be drawn to the problems caused by the concessions on the wearing of civilian clothing in the prison? When I was last in the Maze prison I could not tell the difference between prisoners in civilian clothing and the civilian instructors. Some confusion seems to have been caused.

Mr. Prior: Sir James Hennessy will consider, and give his views on, the wearing of civilian clothing by prisoners. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about prison officers. Some of the prison officers acted with extreme courage and heroism, and deserve the utmost credit for what they did. The prison service in Northern Ireland has a very difficult job, and we should recognise that before we lay any criticism at its door.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why so many terrorists were concentrated in one place at one time?

Mr. Prior: There are three prisons in Northern Ireland, and there are terrorists in all three, but until now the Maze has been considered to be the most secure. No fewer than 250 prisoners in the Maze, out of a total of 830, are serving either life sentences or are detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. The presence of so many life prisoners of a fairly


young age makes necessary a form of prison regime which at the moment is available only at the Maze. That is why there are so many rotten eggs in one basket.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State accept that the foul murder this morning, less than three miles from the border with the Irish Republic, of my constituent, Mr. Cyrus Campbell, was the inevitable result of the boost given to Republican terrorism by the Maze escape? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, as 19 terrorists are still on the run, many of whom are convicted murderers, he has ordered any significant increase in the number of troops along the frontier with the Irish Republic, where terrorists have invariably sought refuge?

Mr. Prior: We all share the distress caused by the murder of another member of the UDR in the hon. Gentleman's constituency this morning, but it would be wrong to say that the murder resulted from the outbreak of prisoners from the Maze. Regrettably, there are many other reasons why people in Northern Ireland have been murdered in the past few weeks, months and years.
There was an increase in security activity on the border immediately after the outbreak and both the GOC and the Chief Constable know perfectly well that if they require additional resources at any time they have only to ask for them.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most disquieting aspect of this incident is the fact that there were firearms in the prison? Can he assure us that that aspect will be considered? Can he also assure us that, as well as reporting what happened, Sir James Hennessy will prescribe what should be done for the future?

Mr. Prior: Where they would be of use to anyone wishing to escape, suggestions about what should be done will obviously not be published. For the most part, everything else will be published. Recommendations applying to all the Northern Ireland prisons, or elsewhere, could certainly be contained in the report. I agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that pistols were in the prison is perhaps the most disturbing aspect.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Given that the events described by the Secretary of State this afternoon are grave and calamitous, and are far more serious than he described them when he said that they have set back law enforcement, will he accept that if the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is to have any meaning in this country his personal position cannot turn on the mere findings——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman would not resign his seat to fight an election.

Mr. Maclennan: —of the Hennessy inquiry, when 38 of the most dangerous prisoners in his custody have escaped?

Mr. Prior: If I had felt that ministerial responsibility was such that in this case I should have resigned, I certainly should have done so. It would be a matter for resignation if the report of the Hennessy inquiry showed that what happened was the result of some act of policy that was my responsibility, or that I failed to implement

something that I had been asked to implement, or should have implemented. In that case, I should resign. The IRA may have had something of a success to relate about the escape, but it would be as nothing compared with the success that it would have to relate if it forced the resignation of the Secretary of State under such circumstances.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I appreciate the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's advice to delay judgment until after Sir James has reported, but is there not one deceptively simple lesson that we can draw in the meantime from this and other events? That lesson is that however sophisticated the mechanisms—and in the Maze they are highly sophisticated — security ultimately rests on the constant reiteration of security procedures and drills by human beings. One of the results of the great successes that my right hon. Friend mentioned — successes for which the Government can certainly take credit—is that in some places in Northern Ireland there may have been a lessening of the will to maintain security and constantly to reiterate security drills.

Mr. Prior: I do not wish to prejudge anything that Sir James Hennessy may say on this subject, but constant attention needs to be paid at all times to all matters concerning security in Northern Ireland, whether they relate to prisons or to the relentless struggle against terrorism outside.

Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, after the Maze breakout, it was only following industrial action by prison officers that he increased the number of posts at Magilligan prison by 20 to improve security there? If that increase in the number of posts was needed, why was industrial action necessary to achieve it? If the increase was not needed, why did he allow it?

Mr. Prior: This is a very difficult matter. In the past two years the number of prison officers in Northern Ireland has increased by 10 per cent. There are 3,000 prison officers, for 2,500 prisoners, which is a far higher ratio for maximum security prisoners than in any other part of the United Kingdom. We must balance the proper requirements of an efficiently run prison system against reasonable grounds for expenditure. We do not know of any cases in Northern Ireland where sufficient resources have not been made available in the past two years. After such an outbreak there are bound to be demands from one quarter or another for additional resources to be devoted to a particular cause. They must be examined, and they are at present the subject of negotiations.

Mr. Alexander Pollock: How much more compulsory overtime may be required of prison staff now, compared with, for example, a year ago?

Mr. Prior: In the past few months overtime has increased and amounts to 15 hours a week. That is far higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The amount of overtime is, of course, a matter of considerable concern, because of tiredness and its effect on prison officers. All those matters will need to be looked at and a balance must be maintained.

Mr. John David Taylor: I should like to associate myself with the Secretary of State in expressing sympathy to Mrs. Ferris and her two sons over the murder of Mr. Ferris, a prison officer and a constituent of mine.
Why have some of those who participated in the murder of the prison officer, who have been caught and returned to the Maze, not been prosecuted for the murder?

Mr. Prior: That is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The decision rests with him, not with me.

Mr. Peter Robinson: How can the Secretary of State speak in such glowing terms about the follow-up operation when, one month after the escape, outbuildings and properties a very short distance from the prison have yet to be searched? What public scrutiny will there be of the report on the breakout from the Chief Constable and the GOC in Northern Ireland? What pressure can be taken off the Maze by the new prison planned at Maghaberry, and why is there such delay in opening it? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) about segregation might well have been to the contrary, in that if there had not been segregation in the H block it is very likely that a number of Loyalist prisoners would have been killed?

Mr. Prior: There is certainly a strong view that had there not been segregation we would have known a good deal more about what was likely to happen. I personally think that segregation is wrong. Those who go to prison should be treated as prisoners, regardless of whether they are Loyalists or Republicans. It is a mistake to try to differentiate between the two. I want to place that firmly on the record.
My hon. Friend referred to the searching of premises immediately outside the prison. The forces of law and order in Northern Ireland have a very difficult job to do. They are constantly being attacked by people in Northern Ireland for being inefficient and for not searching this or doing that. We should be extremely grateful to them for what they do. At times their actions may be criticised, but we should bear in mind the overall standard and efficiency

of both the RUC and the Army. We can all produce tittle tattle about what did not happen or should have happened, but the fact is that the security forces have a difficult job to do. They are responsible to me. I inquire into these matters, but I have no intention of allowing anyone to think that I do not have full confidence in them.

Mr. Tom Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the overwhelming support of the majority of hon. Members for the manner in which he intends to proceed? Will he confirm that the security statistics for the nine months ending 30 September show beyond any shadow of doubt that there has been a marked improvement this year compared with previous years?

Mr. Prior: I am chary of making any prophecies about the security situation in Northern Ireland. At the moment there is an improvement, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, but we shall not be satisfied until all terrorists have been caught and peace has been restored to Northern Ireland. At present, we are some way off that.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the House that the security forces now have adequate contingency plans to deal with any future breakout? This issue cannot await the publication of the Hennessy report.

Mr. Prior: The security forces have contingency plans, which they practise from time to time, in case of a breakout. In the light of the breakout and what happened, they will immediately review those plans to see whether they can be improved in any way. One of the great problems was that the contingency plans involved both an inner and outer ring. It is thought, in the light of experience, that the inner ring was drawn in too closely. Prisoners had passed beyond it by the time it was set up. Those are matters that must be looked at urgently, and they are being considered by the GOC.

Grenada

4 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Grenada. The House will be aware of the violent events of last week on the independent Commonwealth island of Grenada. Her Majesty's Government join with those in the Caribbean region and elsewhere who have deplored the killings, and we view with grave concern the existing state of unconstitutional government and insecurity on the island.
We are particularly conscious that there are some 200 British citizens on Grenada, including a number of British tourists. The resident representative of the British High Commission has been active in maintaining contact with this community and reports that no British citizens appear to be in immediate danger. The Deputy High Commissioner also visited Grenada from Barbados yesterday to make contact with the new authorities and to speak with the Governor-General. He found the island calm but tense and confirmed that neither the Governor-General nor members of the British community appeared to be in any imminent danger.
None the less, the position remains extremely volatile. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government have instructed HMS Antrim to be prepared to evacuate our community should the situation worsen and make this necessary.
Meanwhile, we remain in close touch with the Governments of the other Commonwealth Caribbean countries, whose leaders have been meeting in Trinidad. We shall be discussing with them and with other interested states the best prospects of helping to achieve a restoration of constitutional government, peace and security in Grenada. I shall keep the House informed of developments.

Mr. Denis Healey: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making the statement. The Opposition fully share his concern at what has happened in Grenada during the last week. Military dictatorships are all too common in that part of the world. I think that I am correct in saying that this is the first time that anything like one has been established in a Commonwealth country in the Caribbean. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to ensure the evacuation of any British citizens who wish to leave the island and his intention to concert policy with other Commonwealth members in the Caribbean.
Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that there is no question of American military intervention on the island? It could only make the position worse.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know of no such intention.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any information about the alleged Cuban presence on Grenada and the role that it has played or is playing? Is he aware of the widespread belief in the Caribbean during the past two or three years that Grenada should be regarded as part of a Soviet game-plan, and the new airports as a jumping-off ground aimed primarily at Trinidad and Venezuela? Should we not, therefore, see the

incident as a serious development in the global struggle for power and not just as an isolated seizure of power by a group of the military?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One must take account of all those factors in considering such a matter. It must be remembered that Prime Minister Bishop, who lost his life in the recent coup d'état, was a close friend and associate of Dr. Castro, that there are several hundred Cuban advisers on the island already, and that the Cuban Government have lamented the death of Prime Minister Bishop and deplored the recent events. It is difficult to conclude—although my hon. Friend is correct to remind us of the facts — that in that respect the matter has changed significantly.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State think that, where a group has seized power in a Commonwealth country with a small population, the British Government have any responsibility to do anything?.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The British Government obviously are concerned with such an event in any independent country, particularly one that has only recently secured that independence and freedom as a result of decisions of the House, but Grenada is an independent country. Our concern and what we are prepared to do about it must be determined by recognition of that fact.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the desirability of avoiding any American intervention to safeguard American citizens, can the Foreign Secretary say whether HMS Antrim would have the appropriate authority to assist also in the removal of any Americans who might be at risk? When will the new airport on Grenada be ready? Is it a fact that the airport would enable Mig27s to overfly Venezuela if the Cubans were to land them there? Will the Foreign Secretary raise the matter at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference and ascertain what is the position when a nasty dictatorship, with no regard for human rights, seeks to retain its membership of the Commonwealth?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in a position to tell my hon. Friend the date of completion of the airfield on the island. The United States Government have explained that their own naval forces in the area are in that position solely because of the requirement that may arise to rescue their own very sizeable community in Grenada. There is no reason to doubt that their forces would be sufficient to achieve that purpose, but I take account of the point raised by my hon. Friend.
With regard to the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government, plainly there, as everywhere else in the Commonwealth, there must be concern at an incident of this kind, but it is too early to say whether any conclusion would or would not be right at that stage.

Mr. John Fraser: As I represent tens of thousands of West Indians, may I tell the Foreign Secretary of their openly expressed sense of outrage and grief at what has happened in Grenada? Will it be the aim of the Foreign Secretary's policy, in conjunction with his Commonwealth colleagues, to seek not only the restoration of constitutional government but democracy in Grenada, without undue veto or pressure from the United States, Cuba or any other country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said about the sense of outrage felt by members of the Caribbean population in Britain, as in the Caribbean itself, at what has taken place. It must be remembered that the Government who have been ousted came to power in 1979 as a result of a military coup. I am sure that it would be right for us to take counsel with the Caribbean Commonwealth Governments to see whether there are any steps which can be taken to help promote the prospects of the return of democratic government in the island of Grenada.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has the Foreign Secretary been told that last year members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Havana and Grenada and produced a report with recommendations? Is he aware that among those recommendations in respect of Grenada was a recommendation that Her Majesty's Government should strengthen diplomatic presence there, and that they should initiate talks with a view to starting a bilateral aid programme? Has he been told that in Cmnd. 8819 those recommendations were turned down? Does he agree that the Select Committee might have been right?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am, of course, aware of the recommendations of that Select Committee. The decisions taken in respect of them have been explained in the White Paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I do not believe that an event of this kind would have been significantly influenced by acting on those recommendations.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that all those, including myself, who recently visited Grenada, and met some of the Ministers who have since been murdered, will condemn the actions of the military in Grenada? But have not the Government some responsibility for the event, having not only turned down the recommendations of the Select Committee but, along with United States of America, undermined the economy of Grenada since the moderate regime, led by Bishop, took over? The Stalinists who are now in control, having executed moderate Socialists who wanted to keep their links with Great Britain, are there as a direct result of some of our Government's policies. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the only reason why the Cubans are in Grenada building the airport is that, when Bishop came to Britain and America for help to build a long-planned airport, we turned him down?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view. No doubt he is better qualified than I to make judgments about moderation between Socialists and Communists.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is better qualified than the Foreign Secretary to make judgments on anything.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about possible American intervention was not at all reassuring? Will he and the British Government advise the American Government than any intervention by the United States would be unhelpful? Is he aware that progess towards democracy such as my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken of will not be achieved by any form of external military intervention?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping in the closest possible touch with the United States Government and the Caribbean Governments to which I have referred. I have no reason to think that American military intervention is likely. The United States Government have explained that the movement and presence of their naval vessels in the area is prompted solely by the same reasoning which Led us to consider the positioning of HMS Antrim—to rescue a sizeable American community in Grenada if circumstances deteriorate and evacuation is necessary.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Foreign Secretary making representations to the United States Government to withdraw their fleet, which is anchored off Grenada? Its presence can only exacerbate the situation and be a prelude to a possible landing on Grenada by American forces?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already explained twice that the presence of the United States naval vessels is not prompted by the consideration that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The vessels are there for the reason that the United States Government and we have given. There are more than 1,000 United States citizens and several hundred British citizens on Grenada. It is only prudent that when Governments of democratic countries are faced with such circumstances they take steps to provide for the rescue of their citizens if necessary. That is the reason for the presence of the naval vessels.

Lebanon

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Early in the morning of 23 October, in carefully co-ordinated attacks, two huge bombs exploded in premises in Beirut occupied by United States and French units of the multinational force. At least 160 United States marines and 34 French troops were killed.
The whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the United States and France and to the families of all those who lost their lives in this tragedy. We condemn without qualification those responsible for this hideous act.
We have offered all possible help in the evacuation and treatment of casualties, both on the spot and in RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. We are in the closest touch with our partners in the multinational force and with the Lebanese Government.
The safety of our troops is naturally uppermost in our minds at this time. The commander-in-chief, United Kingdom land forces, General Kitson, is going to Beirut to consider on the spot what may need to be done.
I should like to pay tribute to the coolness and courage of our troops in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The staff of our embassy in Beirut is also to be commended.
The contributors to the MNF want one thing—the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority and the independence of the Lebanon. Without the presence of the MNF contingents, it is very doubtful whether the fragile ceasefire which was agreed on 26 September would have come about. Our own contingent, at the request of all of the parties concerned, has been providing a guard for the meetings of the security committee set up to discuss the implementation of the ceasefire.
National reconciliation talks are to open in Geneva on the 31st of this month. In the light of this latest tragedy, it is now all the more important for all parties in Lebanon to get together urgently to settle their differences by negotiation.

Mr. Denis Healey: I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in condemning the bombing and express our sympathy for the families of those who were killed or injured. I also welcome the help that British forces gave to casualties.
The horror and shock caused by the incident is still fresh in our minds and that is not the best time to take new decisions which might have long-term consequences. I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that the desire for revenge is not a good counsellor, especially when responsibility for the atrocities is obscure. Reprisals which are taken in the heat of anger can inflict suffering on the innocent and make existing circumstances even more difficult.
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that a great deal of circumstantial evidence suggests that the bombings might be connected with the war in the Gulf, which has already caused up to one thousand times as many deaths as yesterday's bombings in Beirut? Can he confirm a report of a Western initiative in the Security Council and that the Soviet Government are prepared to acquiesce to an end to the Gulf war? The Opposition would warmly welcome

such an initiative as the first sign of contact between Russia and the United States which might reduce the risk of their being dragged into direct confrontation against their will.
Yesterday's tragic events are bound to increase already widespread doubts about the role and purpose of the multinational force. It is quite clear that it has not kept the peace although it might, as the Foreign Secretary said, have contributed to the recent ceasefire. However, I must remind the Foreign Secretary that that is the 179th ceasefire in a civil war that has already lasted nearly 10 years.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the multinational force has not restored the authority of the Lebanese Government even in Beirut—the only area in which they have the authority to act—as the Shia Muslims have established a no-go area in West Beirut whence the bombings appear to have been launched?
It appears that almost any action taken by the multinational force is regarded by one group or another as hostile to it. Therefore, the only real role of that force is to act as sitting ducks for terrorist attack.
We want a successful outcome to the talks on national reconciliation as much as the Foreign Secretary. However, I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that those talks can succeed only if the Gemayel Government are prepared to modify the 1943 constitution to give the 60 per cent. Muslim majority in Lebanon a fairer share of power. The Gemayel Government will have no incentive to make those concessions as long as we say, as the Prime Minister did in her joint press conference with President Mitterrand last week, that the multinational force will stay until a government of national reconciliation is established. That is especially so as the multinational force has taken the side of the Gemayel Government in the civil war more than once.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary can assure us at the very least that there will be no increase in the British contingent. I hope that he can confirm what the Minister of State said on television yesterday — that the Government are reconsidering the wisdom of continuing to contribute to the multinational force. According to Mr. Cheysson yesterday, the French Government are reconsidering the French role.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will keep the House regularly informed of developments as I believe that the House is now as sceptical as the United States Congress about the wisdom of continuing to make a contribution in existing circumstances.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, (Mr. Healey) concluded by emphasising the wisdom of continuing to make a contribution in present circumstances. He was right to do that as the initial contribution and establishment of the force was supported by Opposition parties.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I said the exact opposite. I said that there is growing doubt about the wisdom of continuing to make a contribution. I did not say that I supported such a continuation without conditions.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was making no such misunderstanding. I was saying that the right hon. Gentleman concluded by dealing with the wisdom of continuing to make a contribution. I was merely reminding


him and the House that the establishment of the force and a British contingent's participation in it was accepted on both sides of the House. It was a difficult decision and it has remained so. The force is there to enhance the prospect of restoring the authority of the Government in an independent sovereign Lebanon on the basis of conciliation between the various groups in that country. The force cannot be expected to remain there indefinitely, but it will stay for so long as it plays a useful part in promoting the peace process. As I said in my initial answer, it is important for the Government of the Lebanon and all the factions and groups in that country to understand the urgent need for them to settle their differences by a process of conciliation, which means changes on all sides. At present, there is no intention to change the role or size of the force but, clearly, all those countries contributing to the multinational force will now need to reconsider that matter.
Everyone would have wished the force to have established a durable ceasefire, but to have established this breathing space and an opportunity for conciliation to be taken a stage further is at least a step forward. The tragedy of yesterday is a measure of the price that the dozen countries, not only European countries, which are deploying more than 10,000 troops in various groups in the area, are prepared to pay to promote peace there. They are paying a heavy price for doing that. I reiterate the hope that those in the Lebanon who are directly involved will move with a sense of urgency to settle their differences in the light of the sacrifices being made by the rest of the world on their behalf.

Mr. Healey: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm my interpretation of his concluding remarks, which is that the Government are not giving those involved in the talks a blank cheque to continue indefinitely, as the Prime Minister suggested last week? Will he confirm that if rapid progress is not made towards a durable settlement, he will consult with the other Governments contributing to the multinational force with a view to withdrawing it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We are in close consultation with the other Governments. I spent the weekend with the Foreign Secretaries of the European contributors to the multinational force and with the Foreign Secretaries of those countries which intend to contribute to the new observer force that may be sent to the Lebanon. I shall certainly keep in touch with those countries, and keep the House closely informed.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the House is interested in this important subject, but right hon. and hon. Members should ask short questions, as we have a big day ahead of us.

Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever doubts there may originally have been about contributing to the peacekeeping force, a withdrawal on Britain's part today would be seen as a capitulation to terrorism? Does he further agree that without the multinational peacekeeping force we would be faced with a Syrian-Soviet occupation of the Lebanon, which could not conceivably be in the interests of the West or of world peace?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend suggested, a Syrian-Soviet occupation of the Lebanon

would be neither a sensible nor an attractive prospect for the West or world peace. That is one reason why we wish to see established an independent sovereign Lebanon without the intrusion of foreign forces and with the respect of neighbouring states. I also agree with my right hon. Friend that today is not the right time to question our presence in the multinational force, nor to reach a conclusion such as he suggested.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What useful result do the Government think will be achieved by the stationing in the Lebanon of 97 British troops?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The 97 British troops form part of a much larger force that contains three other national contributors. Their presence on behalf of the United Kingdom, together with representatives of 11 other nations, represents peoples committed to the process of recreating peaceful conditions in which an independent sovereign Lebanese Government can survive. If that were to happen, if our presence were to prevent from happening events such as those referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and if it were to prevent the outbreak of the sort of slaughter that we have seen so often in other parts of the world, it would be a useful result.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: While recognising that we should not break with our allies at this time, will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to dispel the impression that he is in favour of withdrawing our troops from Belize — where they are safely and efficiently doing a most important job—but wishes them to remain in the Lebanon, where they are manifestly doing no good and may be doing harm at considerable danger to themselves?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I say nothing about the first matter, which does not arise out of my statement. I do not accept my hon. Friend's conclusion that our troops in Lebanon are doing no good, but considerable harm.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not this incident illustrate yet again that in that region we should be pursuing a policy far more independent of American policy? Why does not the Foreign Secretary encourage a joint United States and Soviet Union initiative, leading to a Geneva conference to which all parties to the Palestinian and the Lebanon disputes could be invited?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would welcome a spread of the areas in which the Soviet Union was willing to play its part in contributing to the process of peacekeeping in other parts of the world. I take the opportunity to answer the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in relation to Iraq, which arises on this question. There is no reason at present to conclude, although the facts are not certain, that there is a link between this incident and the war between Iraq and Iran in the Gulf. It remains a possibility, but it is certain that initiatives may be undertaken soon in the United Nations with a view to securing a conclusion that may lay the foundations for an end to the war in the Gulf: If such a resolution were to pass the Security Council, it would need the concurrence of the Soviet Union, and that remains to be seen. The passing of such a resolution would not bring about an end to the war, but it is being considered closely by the Government and by several other countries.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that several hon. and noble Members of both Houses recently visited Cyprus and saw at first hand the support work carried out by British forces in Cyprus for the MNF in Lebanon? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence our favourable impressions of the work that they do and the support that they give so well? Will he comment on the emphasis that that gives to the importance of Cyprus in relation to the conflict in the middle east?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of what my hon. Friend says and welcome his tribute to the role played and the work carried out by Her Majesty's forces. I hope very much that that will go out as the general view of hon. Members on both sides of the House, thus contributing to the support that the troops need for their difficult task.

Mr. Russell Johnston: May I associate the Liberal party with the sympathy expressed for the French and American soldiers in what was without doubt, as the Secretary of State said, a most hideous crime? I congratulate the Secretary of State on retaining a presence in Beirut that has been careful, low-key but nevertheless supportive of a peaceful solution. I ask him not to wash his hands of the matter hastily. He must make an assessment of the value of what our troops are doing, but he must not do that without the most careful consultation with the other forces involved. I hope that he will do that.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important factor in Lebanese politics is the complex confessional structure of the country? Can he explain how he believes that foreign army patrols will help the Lebanese Government to resolve those problems, and will he tell the House why we are supporting this Lebanese Government rather than any other?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: This Lebanese Government was elected under the constitution — [HON. MEMBERS: "When?".] The President of the Lebanese Government was elected by an overwhelming majority of the Lebanese Parliament, in which all Lebanese groups are represented. I ask my hon. Friend to bear it in mind that in such matters it is not for the House or for any group to invent or to design new Governments or new Government institutions. We must start with the institutions that exist. We are there in response to an invitation offered by the Lebanese Government, and it is right that we moved in on that basis for the purpose that I have described.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As United States policy is notable for its partisanship in the middle east generally—that is to understate it—and as the United States fleet has already heavily attacked one of the parties to the internal disagreement in the Lebanon, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it advisable to tell the President and his business cronies, who do not have a clue about these matters, to get out of the middle east altogether?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman takes a characteristically eccentric and unhelpful view of the basis of the American role in the area. The United States is in

the area because of its conclusion that its presence contributes to the prospect of a peaceful solution to the difficult problems there.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that unfortunately it may be a long time indeed before there is either a political or military solution in the Lebanon? That being so, would it not be wise to move our troops, if possible along with other troops there, to safer locations, as they are bound to be there for a long time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's point that, inevitably, risk is involved in the deployment of troops in these circumstances. That is why we wish to see a conclusion to the uncertainty as soon as possible. However, were the troops to be removed altogether, they would not contribute to the role that they have so far performed. As I have already said, it is right for those involved in the Lebanon to recognise the need to proceed with the utmost urgency towards a resolution of this problem.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be unwise for the British contingent to be seen to be taking sides in the internal and increasingly bloody politics of the Lebanon? Will he continue to resist calls for its removal while it is able to make a positive and helpful contribution towards bringing the parties together in the search for national reconciliation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is, of course, right to take account of the extent to which it can make a positive and helpful contribution. It is on that basis that the troops went, and remain, there. I emphasise that the British troops are taking no sides in this conflict. One reason underlining that fact is the role that they are at present playing at the invitation of all the parties concerned. That is a plain recognition of their independence.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend deny the suggestions that we are involved in the Lebanon because we are subservient to American foreign policy? Will he confirm that our presence there, rightly or wrongly, was a response to requests by the Lebanese Government, whom we wish to help, as a friendly but frail Government, to bring that country forward after years of turmoil and horror?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said and remind him that among the different contingents of troops at present playing a peacekeeping role in the Lebanon there are representatives of countries in Africa and outside western Europe, who plainly would not be there at the behest of the American Government. There are contingents in Lebanon trying to play their part in different ways in promoting the peace process, and it would be quite wrong to conclude that we are there in any sense as a lackey of the United States Government.

Mr. Stuart Bell: A family of constituents whose son is at present in Beirut have expressed great concern at the situation in Lebanon. I am sure that they will note that a senior representative is shortly to visit Beirut. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that there has already been an urgent review of security at the base and of the


accommodation of our contingent with a view to preventing the sort of kamikaze attack that was yesterday perpetrated in Beirut?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I well understand the hon. Gentleman expressing his concern on be half of the family of one of those serving in the present difficult situation in Beirut. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been concerned with the question he raised. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence recently visited the Lebanon as did the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in recent weeks. As a result of all their assessments and the assessment now being undertaken by the officer commanding United Kingdom forces, the very questions raised by the hon. Gentleman have been considered and will be reconsidered in the light of the latest report.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While a responsible Government will wish to re view the presence of British troops in the Lebanon on a day-to-day basis, would not this he the worst possible moment unilaterally to withdraw our contingent from the multinational force? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that beyond the complexities of the political theme in the Lebanon lies a real risk of conflict between the big powers and, therefore, any contribution which Britain can make towards helping the Lebanese Government to secure a peaceful settlement is warmly to be welcomed? Although he will look at the Lebanon on a day-to-day basis, will he also keep at the back of his mind the need for Europe to point the way to a wider settlement of the middle east dispute?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's last point. That question is not only in my mind but in the minds of the other Foreign Ministers of the Ten. I entirely agree that, even if it were under consideration, today, at a time when the forces of other countries have suffered such a severe blow, would be quite the wrong moment to consider unilateral withdrawal.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British presence in the multinational force was not debated in this House and that, unlike the United States Congress, we have not been asked to pronounce upon it? What is his view of the criticism of the presence of the United States in the Lebanon by such distinguished people as Dr. Kissinger and the fact that there is resistance to the United States entrenching its position in the Lebanon?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that the opinions expressed inside and outside Congress are as diverse as those in this House. I understand that my opposite number, Secretary of State George Shultz, will in the next day or two engage in just such an exchange as this in Congress.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Americans in the

nicest possible way that their policies in the middle east are likely to be more successful if they do not take one side in a cross-factional conflict, that President Gemayel was put in place by Members of Parliament elected some 12 years ago—before Lord Wilson's last Administration— and several civil wars ago, and that he has completely destroyed his credibility within the Lebanon by fighting alongside the Fascist forces of the Phalange, the people who perpetrated the massacres in Sabra and Chatila? Will he also remind the Americans that Syria is there, is likely to remain there and should be taken account of?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is right that we should all take account of the presence, interest and role of Syria and the Syrian Government, because they have legitimate security concerns of which we should all take account. However, the differences that exist within the Lebanon are in the last resort to be settled by the Lebanese themselves. Whatever may be said by my hon. Friend, we cannot create a constitutional framework other than that which exists for such differences to be solved. I have no doubt that the American and every other Government concerned try as best they may to reach an honest conclusion as to the objective road to follow. That is the purpose of us all.

Mr. David Young: I was a member of the recent delegation to Cyprus, and one soldier, recently arrived from the Lebanon, asked me "As a soldier my job is to serve where I am sent, but will you as a politician tell me what I am doing in the Lebanon anyway?". Are we putting 97 men there to follow the cause of peace or are they there as pawns in a fight which some hon. Members see as a battle between the West and the East? If we put men there, it is our duty to ensure that they are impartial and not in support of one regime or another.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course it is right that they should be seen to be present impartially. That is the case that I have made this afternoon, and that is widely accepted in the House. They are there to serve the cause of peace. Unfortunately in today's world such service requires soldiers from many countries to serve in some most unattractive and remarkable situations, but that is the purpose of their presence there.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Before these questions end, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman dissociate himself from President Reagan's comment that he intends to seek revenge? Revenge has dominated Lebanese politics since the inception of that country, and if that is the policy that the United States Administration intend to pursue there is little hope of peace in the Lebanon this week, next week or at any time in the future.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The United States has explained the purpose of its presence there—to further the cause of peace and to promote the prospect of an established, strong and independent Lebanon.

British Rail

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Government have listened carefully to the wide public debate on the Serpell report and in particular to the views of the Select Committee on Transport. What emerges strongly from that debate is that it is for the Government to give the railways a clear framework and objectives, and for the British Railways Board to direct and manage its business in the light of them. Accordingly, I have today sent to the chairman of the board, Mr. Reid, a statement of the objectives which the Government wish him to pursue. Copies are available in the Vote Office and I will arrange for it to be published in Hansard.
An efficient railway has a vital part to play in the transport system, but it must give its customers value for money. By giving customers the services they want at a reasonable cost, the railway can secure its own future, and the people who work in the industry can feel pride in their work. British Rail has already begun to introduce really significant improvements, to which I want to pay a warm tribute. The firm objectives I am now setting are designed to further that process.
The board's latest corporate plan is clearly going in the right direction and the objectives I have set Mr. Reid build upon it. In its 1983 plan, the board envisages a requirement for central Government grant of about £635 million—in 1983 prices—by 1988. I am setting the chairman the objective of achieving that target—a grant requirement of £635 million in 1983 prices—two years sooner.
The objectives I have set for the chairman make it plain that it is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures. This puts paid to the scare stories about the network, about which we heard so much following the publication of the Serpell report.
This does not rule out the board proposing changes locally, where they make sense. It is for the chairman to consider new forms of guaranteed and subsidised substitute bus services, where appropriate on local transport and value for money grounds.
The freight, parcels and inter-city businesses can and should work to a commercial objective. The Government believe that rail freight has strong environmental advantages over road freight, so we want as much freight as possible to go by rail, within the financial target for the business, which is to achieve a 5 per cent. return by 1988. The scheme of section 8 grants for rail freight facilities will continue.
The board's plan envisages an increase in investment from present levels. I shall support worthwhile investment which relates directly to the financial and business objectives that we have set.
The railway is operating in a highly competitive market, so it is to the board's advantage to obtain rolling stock wherever possible by competitive tendering and to rationalise excess capacity within BREL as soon as possible. I have asked the chairman to complete by the middle of next year a review of the options for the future of BREL, including the options for privatisation. All the options will be examined on their merits.
Greater private sector finance and involvement can help to improve services for customers and keep down costs. I have therefore called on the chairman to continue to seek greater private sector participation in the development of the railway.
The statement of objectives confirms the Government's intention to privatise Sealink, and also calls for improvements in the railway's industrial relations machinery.
With these objectives, the way is clear for the board to manage the railway so that it gives the country the good quality, efficient service which we all seek.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State's statement and letter offer not a glimmer of hope or a scrap of encouragement to those who seek a decent service in British Rail, or to those who work in or manage British Rail. The statement makes no mention of investment money or investment objectives, and nothing is said about railway electrification, which has been shuttlecocked backwards and forwards between the Secretary of State's Department and British Rail. There can now be no possibility of a quick decision as, presumably, this statement will mean that all the sums will have to be redone. Rail investment was down to £269 million in 1982, when British Rail said that it required £500 million annually to prevent the crumbling edge of quality. Investment cannot be sustained because in recent years British Rail has been forced to cut its investment programme and to live within the harsh economic climate that the Government have created.
Earlier today, the Secretary of State announced that this year's public service obligation grant was to be £819 million, which is £40 million less than British Rail asked for in the corporate plan that it published in August this year. The Secretary of State's statement and letter speak of £635 million in 1986, which is £65 million less than the estimated 1988 requirement. Therefore, on British Rail claims alone, the Secretary of State is withdrawing from British Rail over £200 million of financial support in three years. More than that is being withdrawn when one balances this against the much reduced claims that the Government have forced on British Rail.
The withdrawal of this money can only be brought about by service cuts, line closures, fare rises and accelerated job losses, but the Secretary of State has the cheek to say that he wants British Rail to try to foster a better industrial relations climate. Some 30,000 rail jobs were lost between 1970 and 1979 and a further 42,500 will go between 1981 and 1985.
In his letter, the Secretary of State says that he wants substitute bus services guaranteed. We know that these guarantees did not last for long after the Beeching report. We need to ask the Secretary of State what he means by no "major route closures". Does he mean a 10 per cent. cut in the rail network, a 20 per cent. cut, a 30 per cent. cut or more?
In answer to the Serpell committee report, British Rail made it clear that it was opposed to the privatisation of BREL. It is clear that British Rail must have the full in-house capacity to provide its modern rolling stock. An in-house rail capacity provides a basis for exports that can greatly benefit us. Undoubtedly, further closures of this capacity within British Rail would be to the detriment of British Rail services.
The Secretary of State has not grasped the fact that, compared with other railway systems in Europe, British Rail operates on a much lower subsidy The Secretary of State would have been far better off if he had taken a little more time over his assessment than the five or six days that he has had since he has been in office. It is clear that the Secretary of State has not changed jobs but merely changed the office in which he works. He will have to do better that this if he is to live down his tag of "Lawson's office boy".
Paragraph 5 of the Serpell committee report said:
our review has been concerned with the railway's finances, not transport policy.
That is why the report was hopelessly inadequate. The Secretary of State has made the same fundamental error, and that is why his statement and letter are so hopelessly inadequate. If this is what the Secretary of State has delivered to British Rail, to those who work in it and to those who are served by it in his five days of office, I hope that he does not last as long as his predecessor, who lasted five short months.

Mr. Ridley: On the contrary, this is a document of hope for those who travel on the railway and those who work in it. If the improvement in performance can be maintained there is a secure and commercial future for the railways which will be to the benefit of both groups. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is wrong in his rather grudging welcome to the statement.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of investment, but last year British Rail implemented only 75 per cent. of its investment programme. It is up to British Rail to suggest worthwhile investment proposals for the future. Its plans include significantly higher levels of investment and I shall be glad to support worthwhile projects related to the objectives that we have set the board for investment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Level of grants. I should have thought that he would have been delighted to see the need for public money being reduced by efficiency and railway improvement, because he must not forget to add the passenger transport executive grants, which could amount to about £70 million a year, and which have to be added to the figures in the letter that I sent to the chairman. It is for the very reason that he mentioned in connection with substitute bus services that the word "guaranteed" is included in the objectives. Of course they have to be guaranteed if they are to replace a railway line, but I should have thought that he would agree with the Select Committee on Transport and also with the House, when it debated these matters in February, that this was a worthwhile way of seeking to improve transport facilities.
On the subject of BREL, the engineering workshops, tile hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a large in-house capacity was needed to help to secure exports as well as to refurbish British Rail. The hon. Gentleman must realise that if rolling stock is to be exported it has to be competitive. The chairman is asked to make sure that BREL becomes highly competitive so that it will win orders from both Rail and from overseas. Again, I should have thought that the Opposition shared that objective.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the subsidies that other railways receive. Rather than thinking that the bigger the subsidy that we can give British Rail the better, he should recognise that the smaller the subsidy that we give British Rail, because it is more efficient, the greater the national achievement would be.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which makes it clear that the scare stories put about, particularly by the Liberal party on the south coast during the general election, were false and the fears that they sought to stimulate in the light of the Serpell report were ill founded. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Opposition Front Bench still will not take yes for an answer on that matter? Is it not true that further investment must depend on the removal also of restrictive trade practices in the railways, and that the experience we had with the massive investment on the St. Pancras line, which lay wasted for so long, must not be repeated?

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I repeat that we envisage no major change in the size of the network. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary quoted the Labour party's manifesto on transport policy for the election, which clearly did not insist that every line should be maintained. Of course we must be flexible in these matters. I have said what our intention is for the network, and I hope that that lays to rest the scare stories that have been circulating. I entirely agree that productivity is the key to the future of the network. I congratulate the railways on what they have already done and I urge them to do more.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the Minister be a little more explicit on what he said about no major rail closures? Does he consider that the 70-mile stretch of railway from Settle to Carlisle is a major bit of railway? Will he give an assurance that, if he is asked by the British Railways Board to close that line, he will, in view of the outcry from all parts of the country, see that the proposal is blocked?

Mr. Ridley: If and when the British Rail proposal to withdraw passenger services on the Settle to Carlisle route comes to me, I shall consider it on its merits. In the meantime, I must not do or say anything that would or might appear to prejudge my position, because I have to take the eventual decision.

Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members very much welcome his clear statement that he sees no need for any major reduction in the network? Secondly, on his important point about the key to the future of British Rail being improved productivity, with which certainly all Conservative Members agree, does he accept that to reduce the need for continuing subsidies it is important to get an increase in the capital infrastructure of the railways? One can see clearly in BREL that to reduce the need for maintenance we need new stock. Will my right hon. Friend therefore distinguish between current expenditure and capital investment?

Mr. Ridley: I repeat that it is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures. I agree with my hon. Friend that investment is vital to the future efficiency of the railways. As I said, we shall look with favour upon proposals for investment, even if they show an expanding total in the future, provided that they are properly costed and are investments that will yield a reasonable rate of return.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: If that is the case, does the Secretary of State accept that an overwhelming case has already been made for such investment in rail electrification? Will he therefore stop


giving evasive answers such as those that were given by his colleague at Question Time today about electrification, particularly in connection with the east coast route? As it will help to improve the efficiency and performance of British Rail in the future, will he make it clear to the House and to British Rail that that is the direction that he wants to take?

Mr. Ridley: I have already been chided for coming to a decision within five days about this matter. I cannot reach a decision about the electrification of the east coast route in that short time. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are awaiting the inter-city strategy from British Rail. When it puts forward plans for inter-city business to achieve its expected rate of return, that will be the time to consider major investments of that nature, and we shall consider them in the light of whether they are proper commercial investments.

Mr. Derek Foster: In the light of the Minister's statement this afternoon, what glimmer of hope can he give the people of Shildon, where 2,500 jobs are to go in a town of only 14,000 people? Will not further privatisation of British Rail engineering works involve further closures of that nature, further job losses, and further destruction of rail communities? Will the Secretary of State answer that?

Mr. Ridley: I understand that the British Railways Board has already confirmed the closure of Shildon and two other works. It is not for me to say which works should or should not be closed. It is for me to set out the Government's objectives to the railways, and it is for the British Railways Board to run the railways and take the management decisions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that that relationship must be preserved if the railways are to have a real chance to improve their position in the future.

Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend has told us what he wrote to the chairman, but is he aware that if I were the chairman I would write back to him and say: "Dear Minister, Thank you for your charming letter which, in elegant phrases such as 'value for money' and 'highly competitive market', does not tell me anything at all. Can you please tell me whether you will provide the funds to electrify the railway and to provide this country with the modern railway that we need?" The chairman would also ask: "Are you aware, Minister, 'that British Rail covers a higher percentage of its fares than almost any other railway in the world from its own revenue? Are you also aware, Minister, that I am constantly asked to produce my accounts for the railways, showing track costs, and so forth, while my competitors on the roads have all their costs paid under general taxation? Can you please give me answers to these questions, Minister?"

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's letter to me was a little long and I should like to read it in Hansard to make sure that I pick up all the points that he made. What am I doing for the railways? I have offered to provide £819 million this year and £635 million in 1986. By any standards, those are sizeable sums, and within those sums will be ample funds for the investment programme which all hon. Members who have spoken so far have stressed and which

the Government accept as important. I think, too, that all hon. Gentlemen accept that investment should be directed towards improving the performance and quality of the railway, and not just be investment for investment's sake.

Mr. Harry Cowans: Is the Minister aware that he has just delivered a demoralising body blow not only to the people who work in the industry but to the customers? If one reads between the gobbledegook that has just come from the Dispatch Box, one sees that it really says: "For your efforts in the past"—on which the right hon. Gentleman congratulated the British Railways Board — "you have to accelerate that programme by two years." On the other hand, the statement says further on: "You shall not increase your fares unreasonably." No firm in the private sector could possibly operate in that way. Is not the Minister aware of what that would do? How can he possibly go on saying, as he does, time after time, that there will be no major closures, given the criteria that he has just laid down? Will he please desist from misleading the House by quoting only those parts of the Select Committee report which supports his case? If he will not deal with the report in its entirety, may we debate it in the House?

Mr. Ridley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, both the Serpell report and the British Railways Board's plan showed that major savings could be made partly through investment and partly through improved working practices. The Government have merely said that if those major savings can be made they should be made as quickly as possible, because the sooner they are made the sooner the railways will be modern and efficient. That is not a body blow to the railway industry but an encouragement to it to bring itself to a position in which it can secure its future by attracting customers. If the hon. Gentleman would see the matter in that light, he would realise what an opportunity this is for the railways to establish themselves, not so much at the taxpayers' expense, I hope, but to the benefit of the customers who should be paying the fares.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the financial mess into which unlimited subsidy has led the German state railway system? May I wish him all strength in resisting pressure to go down that track?

Mr. Ridley: I need no encouragement to avoid that track. British railways might well begin to be among the most efficient in the world if they can meet the requirements and the objectives that I have set out. The greatest error of all is to fall into the trap of thinking that the more money one throws at the railways, the better the railways will be. I suspect the reverse to be the case.

Mr. Stephen Ross: We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speed with which he has reached his decision as to the future guidelines for the railways, but we wish that he had taken longer to consider the implications. We suspect that the information and advice given to him by the Department is anti-rail. I suggest that his contribution today has done nothing to improve the morale of the railways.
If the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is satisfied with the rolling stock in the south of England, I am certainly not, and I am sure that a great many people agree with me.
As to the future privatisation of Sealink, can the Secretary of State give a time scale for that? Does he intend British Rail to retain a substantial shareholding— below 50 per cent. — in a future company that will operate those services?

Mr. Ridley: With regard to rolling stock, I appreciate that there is a particular problem in the Isle of Wight, which has special requirements due to the gauge and track. We are not interfering with sound investment decisions by British Rail for the future. They will be enabled to go ahead. The Department is not anti-rail, and nor am I. I reinforce that by saying that the objectives have been discussed with the chairman of British Rail and I sincerely believe that he will find them helpful and will be able to live with them. Far from being anti-rail, I believe that the proposals will be welcomed by the railways.
The objectives require the chairman to have Sealink ready for privatisation as soon as possible, but I can tell the House neither when that will be nor the exact method of privatisation and eventual shareholding afterwards.

Mr. Rob Hayward: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the prime responsibility of the railway is to serve its customers who require a clean and reliable service at reasonable cost?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend could not have put it better. That is exactly what we should be looking to. Those who work on the railways should ensure that their service appeals to travellers so as to attract extra custom and thus ensure a flourishing railway.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The cuts in the railways are responsible for the great lack of staff to clean and maintain them. Are not the Government going headlong down the path of privatisation without any proof that the result will not be chaos on the railways which we shall later have to clear up? The railways were originally nationalised because of their inefficiency.
The Secretary of State asked where he would find the taxpayers' money to put into the railways. Has he considered that the throwing of taxpayers' money, as the saying now goes, has resulted in more than £3,000 million going to the farmers? I suggest that he takes some of that away from his pals and puts it into the railways as they urgently need it. According to his argument, the farmers will become more and more inefficient if more money is thrown at them, but they seem to be making millions for themselves while somehow maintaining a certain amount of efficiency. Will the Secretary of State explain that?

Mr. Ridley: There is a lot to explain.

Mr. Flannery: Is the right hon. Gentleman a farmer by any chance?

Mr. Ridley: Alas, I am not. There are no cuts in the statement. There is a reduction of subsidy to meet increased efficiency. I do not regard that as a cut. There are no grounds for believing that we can privatise the railways in the near future. That is not in the objectives that I have set for the chairman and I do not believe that it would be possible within that timescale, but it would clearly be most undesirable if the hon. Gentleman were ever allowed to clear up the mess in this or in any other area.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he wishes to discuss farming.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very warm welcome will be given to his statement, especially the emphasis on the introduction of private capital into all aspects of the railway's activities? Can he assure the House that higher priority will be given to the sale of redundant property, of which there is a great deal, especially in the inner cities?

Mr. Ridley: BRIL, the investment subsidiary of the railways, has already sold a great deal of property. The objectives expressly require the chairman to press on to ensure that the sale of surplus property is increased. That has already made a great difference to the funds available to the railways for investment.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement represents a move towards the introduction of full economic fares for commuters in the south-east?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Given my right hon. Friend's welcome remarks about investment, may we assume that if the British Railways Board meets the commercial criteria laid down by the Government for the electrification of the east coast line the Government will respond quickly by giving approval for that to go ahead?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, but there is one qualification. We wish to see the plan for the development of the Inter-city service as a whole rather than take one bit in advance. We want to see the inter-city services operating on a plan which will bring a return on capital. That is the background against which we shall judge each electrification application.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I welcome some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments if he really means them. He said that he would support local changes where they made sense and that he supported the movement of freight by rail. Is he aware that most of the north Yorkshire coalfield product travels by rail through the centre of Knottingley in my constituency? Is he further aware that in the near future the vast bulk of the product from the new Selby coalfield will travel the same way? Does he appreciate that at that point the town's transport system will collapse and the environmental conditions involved will make many residential areas uninhabitable? In view of that, and bearing in mind his comments today, will the Secretary of State support the provision of a rail by-pass for the southern part of Knottingley?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot be asked to do the chairman's job and make decisions on where lines should be. If the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the south Yorkshire passenger transport executive, he may be able to get help from that source. When management decisions are before the board I want to ensure that the Government's objectives are clearly set out.

Following is the statement of objectives:


R. B. Reid Esq. CBE



The Chairman



British Railways Board



Rail House



Euston Square



LONDON NW1 Dear Chairman
24 October 1983

This letter sets out the objectives the Government wishes you to pursue. It supplements the statutory and financial duties of the Board.

Your guiding objective should be to run an efficient railway, providing good value for money. Services to your customers should be reliable, attractive and punctual, at acceptable fares and charges; and the cost to the taxpayer should be reduced. That is the way to achieve a secure future for the railway, enable worthwhile investment to go ahead and give your employees satisfaction and pride in their work.

The Board's current Plan shows the requirement for PSO grant from central government falling to about £700m (in 1983 prices) in 1986 and to about £635m in 1988. The Government wants you to go faster than this so as to reduce the requirement for central government grant to £635m (in 1983 prices) in 1986. Your 1984 Plan should show the profile of expenditure and the measures required to achieve this.

It is not our intention that you should embark on a programme of major route closures. At the same time I should welcome your early views, following the endorsement of the case by the Select Committee on Transport, on the practicability of introducing some guaranteed and subsidised substitute bus services, where they would be appropriate on local transport and value for money grounds.

I shall want you to work closely with London Regional Transport, when it is set up, and with other public transport operators, to provide a better deal for travellers in and around London and to avoid wasteful duplication.

It is the Board's responsibility to determine fares. But improved efficiency must make a full contribution to keeping down fares. The railway must not use its market position to raise fares unreasonably.

The Board's 1983 Corporate Plan shows the Freight Business coming into profit by 1986. You should take the necessary action to ensure that it achieves a current cost operating profit of 5% in 1988. Within the financial targets set out above, I want you to win as much freight business from road as possible. The objective for the Parcels business should be to continue to earn a proper commercial return. I look forward to receiving the Board's review of the Inter-City business against its commercial target.

The Government wants you to secure improvements to the railways' present industrial relations machinery, which has hampered good communications and slowed down the necessary pace of change.

Sealink must be made ready for privatisation as soon as possible. The Government looks to you to obtain from the private sector more supply and support services, including rail and station catering. I shall welcome proposals from you for more private sector finance and participation in the development of stations and railway services. The Board should continue to pursue a vigorous policy of property development and disposal.

Rationalisation of British Rail Engineering Limited's excess capacity should be completed as soon as possible. You should complete your review by the middle of next year of the options for the future of BREL, including the options for privatisation. Railway rolling stock should be procured wherever possible by competitive tendering; and the railway equipment industry should continue to be allowed the opportunity to offer design solutions to meet BR's requirements.

Your investment programmes should relate directly to the financial and business objectives set out above. You will clearly wish to give proper priority to cost saving investment which gives an early return; and to carrying forward the improvements which the Board has introduced in management accounting and control.

I look forward to working with you and your Board to achieve the good quality, efficient railway services which are our common goal and to seeing these objectives reflected in your 1984 Plan.

Yours sincerely

Nicholas Ridley

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

David John Maclean, Esq., Penrith and The Border.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Secretary of State for the Environment's contempt for the House of Commons in announcing the rate support grant settlement four days before the resumption of Parliament, his contempt for the local authorities in failing to convene the consultative council on local government finance and, above all, his contempt for the ratepayers in imposing lower grant and higher penalties, which will force rates up to higher levels.
The matter is specific because the rate support grant settlement and accompanying penalties were published last Thursday. It is important because the rate support grant affects the finances, and therefore the services, of every local authority in the country. The matter should have urgent consideration so that right hon. and hon. Members can express their views on the Secretary of State's behaviour towards the House, towards local authorities and, most of all, towards ratepayers.
The House has a right to pass judgment on the Secretary of State's decision to publish the settlement four days before the House reconvened instead of making a statement here today, as other Ministers have done. This follows the Secretary of State's contempt for the House when he published his rates White Paper and his local authority spending ceilings on the Monday after we went into recess. We are talking of a Minister who deliberately times difficult announcements in order to dodge and cheat Parliament.
The House has a right to pass judgment on the Secretary of State's distortion of section 1(3) of the Local Government Act 1974, which requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities on the rate support grant settlement.
The Department of the Environment's announcement last Thursday began:
Mr. Patrick Jenkin, the Secretary of State for the Environment, today consulted local government on the Government's proposals for English local authorities' 1984–85 current expenditure".
That statement was the consultation. It is a farce. No meeting took place; no consultation took place. Local authorities read about the consultation in the newspapers. This is a scandalous abuse of a statute passed by Parliament.
The House has a right to pass judgment on the fiddling of the figures in the announcement and on the pretence that the grant will rise by £90 million, when it is being cut by £600 million. The House has a right to pass judgment on the pretence that expenditure is being allowed to rise when it, too, is being cut. Rates will be pushed up to record levels, services will be cut and jobs will go.
All those matters are specific and urgent. The House has a right to hold this overweening Minister to account and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the rate support grant settlement 1984–85.


The right hon. Gentleman will know that the only decision I have to make is whether this matter should have precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need to reassure the people of Stockton, North, who are in turmoil over the proposal to dispose of intermediate-level nuclear waste in the disused anhydrite mines at Billingham.
I consider the matter to be specific because this is the first definitive proposal to dispose of intermediate-level radioactive waste in a permanent manner at a specific site.
The matter is important because Billingham is densely populated and has a high concentration of industry which produces a wide range of volatile commodities. Many of the commodities are stored cheek by jowl in subterranean cavities in close proximity to the proposed site. The area has a high community commitment of long standing. The inside of the mine is a corrosive environment.
The matter is urgent because, after nine months of speculation, which has caused acute anxiety and concern, the population have been roused to the point of turmoil by the cavalier manner in which Nirex has repeatedly changed its statements and the covert way in which it has conducted its affairs.
In the genuine pursuit of my constituents' peace of mind and of good public order and discipline I urge the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, in order to allay the understandable fears of the people of Stockton, North specifically, and of Cleveland in general.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need to reassure the people of Stockton, North, who are in turmoil over the proposal to dispose of intermediate-level nuclear waste in the disused anhydrite mines at Billingham.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Metal Box Co. Ltd.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by the Metal Box Co. Ltd. that it intends to make 355 people redundant at five different factories throughout the United Kingdom, including 195 at its Aintree factory on Merseyside, which represents the sacking of one-quarter of the Metal Box, Merseyside work force.
The matter is, indeed, urgent. First, it is urgent in the light of the massive unemployment level on Merseyside. The Metal Box redundancies came on top of the announcement on the same day by Seagrams that it intends to close its operations on Merseyside with the loss of another 220 jobs.
Since the general election, Merseyside has been blitzed by closures and redundancies, one after the other— United Biscuits 2,000 jobs; Purley Oil 128; Binns Ltd. 200; Cadbury Schweppes 315; Perry Brous 140; Nabisco 970; Barclays 127; the National Health Service 560; and now Seagrams and Metal Box are following.
The urgency of the position cannot be exaggerated because Merseyside is being turned into an industrial desert. An urgent debate on that specific issue is necessary because of the reasons provided by the Metal Box management for the redundancies. Its statement makes the issue urgent not only for Merseyside but for the whole nation. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the recession is nearly over and that the economy is on the upturn. The Metal Box management explained that the redundancies were due mainly to the generally depressed home and export markets. Yet Metal Box is the sort of company that should be benefiting from any upturn in the economy. But it is not.
It is urgent that we debate the issue because what is happening to Merseyside today will be the fate of the nation tomorrow if urgent action to restore the nation's economy is not taken now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by the Metal Box Co. Ltd. that it intends to make 355 people redundant at five different factories throughout the United Kingdom, including 195 at its Aintree factory on Merseyside".
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary, I must tell the House that I have selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When, last March, my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw asked the House to renew the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, he said that the Government intended to introduce a Bill to replace the Act. Subject to the consultations that were then in progress, it was intended that the Bill would implement the changes recommended by Lord Jellicoe, whose review of the operation of the 1976 Act was published in February.
The Bill we are debating today incorporates the changes recommended by Lord Jellicoe. They are designed to ensure that the law achieves what Lord Jellicoe saw as the proper balance between the safety of the public and the rights of the individual.
The first Act was passed as an emergency measure in November 1974 in response to an intensive campaign by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland and on the mainland. In the first 20 days of that November there had been 11 attacks on the mainland, killing four people and injuring 35, and on the night of the 21st explosions in two Birmingham pubs killed 21 and injured another 183 people. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was introduced on 27 November, passed through all its stages in one day, and came into force on 29 November. It was renewed six months later, and in 1975 a new Bill was introduced to give Parliament the opportunity to debate the provisions in more detail than had been possible in 1974. That Bill became the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, which will be repealed by the Bill we are debating today.
Both the previous Acts of 1974 and 1976 have been subject to renewal by Parliament at regular intervals— six months and one year respectively. That has served to remind us all that the powers that it bestows on the Secretary of State and the police are exceptional, not to be taken for granted, and to be exercised only with the greatest care and consideration. As the fourth Home Secretary to be called on to exercise those powers, I can acknowledge readily that, in other circumstances, I would regard them as wholly unacceptable. But, like my predecessors — and like both Houses of Parliament, which have renewed them on nine occasions — I am certain that the powers form an essential part of our armoury in the fight against terrorism.
The threat from terrorism is the most direct challenge facing society today. Fortunately, there has not been an Irish terrorist incident on the mainland since the London park bombings last year. But that is not because the terrorists have lost their will. That is, sadly, shown clearly by events in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA and


INLA are constantly working towards and planning equally bloody attacks in Great Britain. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated work of the police who follow up the most tenuous leads and piece together evidence. They provide a bulwark against further outbreaks of senseless violence. The day-to-day work involved is hard, unremitting and sometimes dangerous, and its successes must often go unknown and unrecognised by the public. But we must be all the more grateful to those who do this work and take the risks on our behalf.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to proscribe organisations concerned in Northern Irish terrorism, and creates a range of offences connected with such organisations. It enables him to exclude persons from the United Kingdom, from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland if it seems to him expedient to do so to prevent acts of terrorism. Part 3 makes it an offence to contribute or solicit support for acts of terrorism, and to withhold information about such acts. The Bill also gives the police the power to arrest suspected terrorists without a warrant and to detain them for a limited period, which may be extended with the authority of the Secretary of State.
I do not propose to deal in detail with all the provisions, but will focus on the major powers in the Bill, and above all on the changes that it makes to the provisions of the 1976 Act. The first of those changes related to the powers of arrest and detention. In giving the police those powers, the 1976 Act stated explicitly in every section, except those relating to arrest and detention and to the port powers, that the acts of terrorism referred to are acts of terrorism concerned with Northern Irish affairs. The intention was to provide a power to detain a person who was suspected of being a terrorist, even though it was not known what cause he supported. But it was nevertheless made clear during the passage of the 1976 Act that that section, like the Act as a whole, would be used to combat Northern Irish terrorism and not, knowingly, against other terrorist groups. That undertaking has been honoured.
But, as well as the threat from Irish terrorism, there is a newer danger facing us today—from members of international terrorist groups, often with middle east connections, who have in recent years operated increasingly in the capitals of Western Europe. We have had our share of this violence. I need only remind hon. Members of the shooting of the Israeli ambassador here in London last summer—an assassination attempt for which those responsible are now serving long sentences. We fully recognise the seriousness of the threat to public safety posed by international terrorism. And so we have accepted Lord Jellicoe's recommendation that the power of arrest and detention, which was introduced to counter the threat posed by Irish terrorists, should be applied also to international terrorists.
We have also accepted Lord Jellicoe's view that those powers should not cover groups concerned in what he defined as "domestic terrorism"—that is, terrorisim directed at influencing the internal affairs of the United Kingdom with the exception of Northern Ireland. Clause 12 has been drafted in such a way as to exclude the activities of, for example, Welsh and Scottish extremist groups. To date, mercifully no "domestic" group has been seen as posing a threat to public safety which is at all comparable to that posed by Irish or international groups. Should the picture change, the Government would, of course, be ready to consider asking Parliament to extend those powers as necessary.
It is only the powers of arrest and detention which we propose should be extended to international terrorists. This is because powers are needed only for purposes which cannot be fulfilled in any other way. For the most part the international terrorists at whom the extension in clause 12 is directed will be foreign nationals. The powers in the immigration legislation will provide adequate means of keeping them out of the United Kingdom without the need to resort to the exclusion powers in this Bill. The proscription arrangements, too, would not be relevant to an organisation which does not recruit, to a significant level, in the United Kingdom.
I must make it quite clear that the Government are determined to pursue a policy of close co-operation with other countries to stamp out international terrorism. Our police and security forces work closely together. A notable example of that was the interception at Le Havre of a large consignment of weapons, bound for the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that their ultimate destination was the armouries of the Provisional IRA. The success of the operation was the result of co-operation between the authorities in a number of countries.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Having quoted that example of the way in which arms were detected, will the Home Secretary illustrate to the House how the existing legislation had, or the proposed legislation will have, any impact on that policing?

Mr. Brittan: I gave it as an illustration not of the impact of this Bill, which has not yet come into effect, but rather of the international co-operation which is a crucial part of the battle against terrorism. I hope that the House will allow me the indulgence of giving that illustration, as an illustration of that point and of that point only.
Several of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations were designed to improve the exclusion order system. Under the present arrangements there is no time limit on such orders. Although they may be reviewed after three years, they have an indefinite life. Lord Jellicoe recommended that orders should have a life of three years, after which they would lapse.
In making this recommendation, Lord Jellicoe said that he was not implying any criticism of the three-year review procedure. He felt that something more was needed— that the Secretary of State should need to justify the continuance of the order, rather than expecting the excluded person to provide grounds for its revocation. It would be open to the Secretary of State to make a new order against someone who was the subject of an earlier, expired order. The Government have accepted that recommendation.
The 1976 Act lays down a number of conditions which may exempt a British citizen from the exclusion order procedure. Under sections 4 and 5 of the Act a British citizen may not be excluded from a part of the United Kingdom— either Northern. Ireland or Great Britain—in which he has been ordinarily resident for 20 years. Lord Jellicoe recommended that this qualifying period should be reduced to three years. We have accepted that change, which is designed to ensure that the exercise of the power to exclude does not involve uprooting people from areas where they have been settled for many years, resulting in bitterness, the break-up of families and increased alienation from society.
A further change recommended by Lord Jellicoe and incorporated in the Bill is designed to encourage more


excluded persons to make use of the system under which they may make representations against exclusion. Under the present system an excluded person may make representations within 96 hours of being served with the exclusion order and may include in them a request for an interview with one of the advisers appointed by the Secretary of State, to whom all such cases are referred. But an interview can be granted only if the subject has not yet been removed from that area from which he is excluded. That means that, in practice, a person who makes representations must remain in custody until an interview can be arranged, if he has requested one, and subsequently until the Secretary of State has considered his representations and the adviser's reports and has reached a decision in the case.
Lord Jellicoe suggested that the combined effect of the 96-hour rule and the fact that there is no entitlement to an interview after removal created a disincentive to make representations—a view supported by the fact that only 44 people have done so since 1974 out of nearly 300. He therefore recommended that there should be an absolute right, within the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, to an interview with an adviser, and that the period within which representations may be made should be extended to seven days. In accepting these recommendations we have introduced a further extension which is designed to reduce the time spent in custody by encouraging people to agree to be removed from the area from which they are excluded. Accordingly, for those who do agree to this, the Bill provides for the deadline for making representations to be further extended to 14 days.
Now that I have explained the changes to the 1976 Act, I shall deal briefly with each of the present Bill's parts.
I begin by drawing attention to clause 17. It affects the whole character of the Bill by providing that its life shall be limited to five years from the date of the Royal Assent, and that it shall, like the 1976 Act, be subject to annual renewal. The introduction of a limited life reflects the view of Lord Jellicoe, which we share, that
special powers require exceptional safeguards, and it must ultimately be for Parliament, which granted these powers, to satisfy itself that both powers and safeguards are well used and effective".
The introduction of a limited life for these measures will ensure that the need for the powers and their extent will be fully considered in detail and de novo before the fifth anniversary of Royal Assent.

Mr. David Alton: The Home Secretary has been talking about the effectiveness of this legislation. Will he confirm that more than 5,000 completely innocent people, whose only crime was to be Irish, have been arrested under this legislation and subsequently released? Does he not accept that that has been a running sore among many ordinary Irish people and that the legislation has not been effective with them? What code of conduct is contained in the legislation to ensure that people are not manhandled, strip-searched or held in detention for unnecessarily long periods?

Mr. Brittan: I do not for one single moment accept that the numbers to which the hon. Gentleman refers prove that the legislation has not been effective. The use of the powers of detention under the legislation has acted, first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have

been detained and, secondly, it has in the course of the detention of those concerned enabled some to be excluded and charged on the basis of information obtained and, in the case of many others, enabled information to be obtained that was of direct value in the battle against terrorism, even though it did not lead to action against the people concerned.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary make this point absolutely clear as it is crucial to many of us? Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?

Mr. Brittan: It has been made clear not by me but by the courts that that is a legitimate and necessary use of the power. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are discussing a severely limited period of detention, not on the basis of a completely arbitrary exercise of the power, but on the basis of the exercise of the power by the police for 48 hours. For any extension beyond that there is a requirement that the Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House, should be satisfied that the persons concerned have been involved in or are likely to be involved in acts of terrorism. Although I accept that, were the position with regard to terrorism other than what it is it would be intensely undesirable for these powers to exist or be used, I think that in the context in which we live the existence of the power, which has been on the statute book and supported by Governments of both political parties for a number of years, is sadly justified.
Of the Bill's five parts, parts I and III are substantially the same as the equivalent provisions of the 1976 Act: part II relates to exclusion, and part IV, which embodies the powers of arrest and detention, includes the changes that I have already described. Part V includes the change in the duration of the legislation.
Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to proscribe in Great Britain organisations which appear to him to be concerned in terrorism occurring in the United Kindgom and connected with Northern Irish affairs. The organisations proscribed are named in schedule 1. Clause 1 also makes it an offence to belong to, to invite or provide financial support for, or to arrange a meeting of, a proscribed organisation.
Clause 2 makes it an offence to wear any item of dress or carry or display any article which suggests membership of or support for a proscribed organisation. Neither clause applies to Northern Ireland, where the Secretary of State has separate powers of proscription.
Part II of the Bill relates to the making of exclusion orders. Clause 3 says that the Secretary of State may exercise the power to make exclusion orders
in such a way as appears to him expedient to prevent acts of terrorism
related to Northern Irish affairs. It enables him to revoke an exclusion order at any time and imposes on all orders a time limit of three years. Under the transitional arrangements in clause 18, exclusion orders still in force on the date of Royal Assent will expire three years from that date, unless they are revoked earlier. This will enable all the 280 or so orders now existing to be reviewed during that three-year period so that decisions on whether they should be revoked or remade may be taken.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make one thing clear? At the


end of a three-year period, when an exclusion order under the Bill ceases to have effect, it will, I trust, be open to the police to apply for an extension of that order if they believe it to be justified.

Mr. Brittan: It would be a fresh order, but they would be able to make such an application.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 relate to the three different types of exclusion order. In each case, before making an order, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the person in question is, or has been, concerned is the Commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism related to Northern Irish affairs or intends to became so concerned.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I think that at an earlier stage in the Home Secretary's speech he indicated that where terrorism other than that connected with Northern Ireland was in question the effect of exclusion orders from the United Kingdom could be produced under the immigration law.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned clause 6, may I direct his attention to subsection (2), which provides that an exclusion order may prohibit a person from being in the United Kingdom. Are not there circumstances in which a person is in the United Kingdom and the immigration law would not permit that person, at any rate as promptly as desirable, to be excluded from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that that would be the case in the circumstances that I have described, but I should like to look further at the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the immigration powers would be sufficient to cover such a case in the circumstances that I have in mind.
Clause 6 is for use against persons who are not British citizens and permits the exclusion of such a person from the United Kingdom.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 contain a variety of safeguards designed to prevent undue hardship arising from an exclusion order. In all cases, the Secretary of State is required to have regard to whether a person's connection with a country or territory other than the one from which he may be excluded is such as to make exclusion appropriate. For exclusion orders against British citizens, there are two further safeguards. They may not be excluded from both Great Britain and Northern Ireland or from a part of the United Kingdom in which they have been ordinarily resident for three years. As I said, that is a change.
Clause 7 gives excluded persons the right to make representations against their exclusion, and requires the Secretary of State to refer these representations to an independent adviser nominated by him. I have described the changes in those arrangements.
Clauses 8 and 9 are essentially the same as the equivalent sections of the 1976 Act. Clause 8 provides that the Secretary of State may have an excluded person removed if he consents, if he has made representations which have not been accepted, or if he had not made representations within the period specified.
Part III relates to miscellaneous offences. Under clause 10, it is an offence to make or solicit any contributions, whether financial or otherwise, in the knowledge that they will be used for the Commission, instigation or preparation of acts of terrorism related to Northern Irish affairs. Such money is liable to be forfeited following a conviction.
Clause 11 makes it an offence to withhold from the police and, in Northern Ireland, from the security forces any information that might assist in preventing acts of terrorism or in securing the apprehension, arrest or conviction of any person for a terrorist-related offence.
Part IV relates to arrest and detention and embodies the major change that I described earlier—the extension of the police powers to international terrorists. Clause 12 gives the police the power to arrest without warrant a person whom they have reasonable grounds for suspecting of involvement in the Commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism related to Northern Irish or international affairs, of being the subject of an exclusion order, or of having committed an offence under clauses 1, 9 or 10. The major change here from the 1976 arrangements is the explicit inclusion of international terrorism, but a further change recommended by Lord Jellicoe is also included—the removal from the list of "arrestable" offences of the one now to be found in clause 11, which makes it an offence to withhold information about terrorist matters.
A person arrested under clause 12 may be detained for up to 48 hours and, with the authority of the Secretary of State, for up to a further five days. Under the 1976 Act, the Secretary of State could agree to only one extension which could be for any period up to five days. This Bill incorporates a change which will allow the Secretary of State to agree to more than one extension. For example, he might authorise a three-day extension, after which a new application for no more than two further days would be necessary. As with the existing arrangements, the total period of detention will not be permitted to exceed seven days. I hope that by use of this provision it may be possible to ensure that each arrested person spends the minimum possible time in custody.
Two related recommendations made by Lord Jellicoe have already been implemented. A follow-up report is prepared for each extension so that we can consider whether the purpose for which it was granted has been achieved, and thus both monitor individual cases and gain a general impression of how useful this power is. Also, unless circumstances make it impossible, every application for an extension is considered by me personally. If that is not possible, one of my ministerial colleagues takes the decision.
A further group of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations was designed to ensure that people detained under this legislation have the same rights as any other detainees. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which I shall be introducing later this week, will give effect to those recommendations by providing for access to legal advice and for the notification of a relative or friend of a detainee's whereabouts.
I have implemented two more of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations—numbers 33 and 38—by asking Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to carry out a study of the police work at ports. Lord Jellicoe noted considerable variation between ports in the way in which controls were operated, and identified some deficiencies in the physical accommodation provided in connection with the controls. The study will also cover the recommendation that all passengers on commercial flights and sailings between Great Britain and the island of Ireland should complete landing and embarkation cards.
Clause 13 and schedule 3 empower the Secretary of State to make, by statutory instrument, an order which


enables security checks to be made at all ports. We envisage that the order, which will be laid before the House as soon as possible after this Bill receives Royal Assent, will be similar to the one now in operation, but it will incorporate a few changes to reflect recommendations made by Lord Jellicoe.
Each debate on the prevention of terrorism legislation, throughout the nine years of its life, has focused on the need for a balance to be struck between civil liberties and public safety. Introducing the 1974 Act on its Second Reading, the then Home Secretary, now the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), said:
It cannot be without reluctance that we contemplate powers of the kind proposed in the Bill, involving as they must some encroachment—limited but real—on the liberties of individual citizens. Few things would provide a more gratifying victory to the terrorists than for this country to undermine its traditional freedoms in the very process of countering the enemies of those freedoms. This we must keep in mind not only today but in the future as we persevere in what may not be a short struggle to eradicate terrorism from this country."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 634.]
Those words are as true today as they were then, and the end of the terrorist menace is still not in sight.
In March 1977, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), introducing the debate on the renewal of the 1976 Act, said:
It is right that the balance between civil rights and the need for the protection of our citizens should be weighed up and discussed. There is a balance to be struck, and my judgment is that the continuance of the Act is a necessity."— [Official Report, 9 March 1977; Vol. 927, c. 1475.]
In recent renewal debates, the Labour party has moved appreciably from this position, although it was not until this year that the Opposition decided to vote against renewal.
We have been given notice of the terms of a reasoned amendment which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) intends to move. Apparently, it will make clear that the basis of the Opposition's rejection of the Bill is that Lord Jellicoe found that there can be no clear proof of the effectiveness of such measures and that some people in Northern Ireland who are opposed to terrorism believe that the Bill will foster support for terrorists.
It is understandable that the Opposition should seek to look to Lord Jellicoe for support for their stance, but I am afraid that I have concluded that the use of this selective quotation implied in the reasoned amendment is not a fair one. There can be no clear proof—there is no question of that—and the Opposition have known perfectly well since 1974 that that was the case, although all those years they supported special measures.
The need for a preventive measure cannot, by definition, be demonstrated in that sort of way, and Lord Jellicoe was bound to say that. But if the Opposition quote Lord Jellicoe they should quote the conclusion that he reached in his review. It was that after nine months of intensive inquiry, completed only a few months ago, he believed that special legislation effectively reduced terrorism and that it should be continued for as long as a substantial terrorist threat remained.
When it comes to the extended detention power just mentioned, Lord Jellicoe concluded:
In the light of my inquiries and of the evidence submitted to me, I have therefore come to the firm conclusion that if the

power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped in dealing with terrorists.
He concluded that the renewal of legislation was justified and made recommendations, which we are implementing in the Bill, for changes in it taking account of the need to preserve that delicate balance between individual liberties and the protection of the public, which we all have at heart.
I believe that we must strike at that difficult balance. We must provide the necessary powers, provide proper safeguards and ensure that the powers are used fairly. The Bill seeks to strike just such a balance.
I believe that there are many others in the House, not just my right hon. and hon. Friends, who will share my regret that the Opposition once again are departing from the position that they followed so wisely for nine years in the national interest. The previous legislation has been a real asset in the battle against terrorism. The Bill is similar in its essential features, but it incorporates important and useful improvements largely in a liberalising direction. It is important that the House should send the Bill into Standing Committee by a large majority. I invite it to do so.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which includes the power of arbitrary arrest and detention and the exclusion of British Citizens from parts of the United Kingdom, which is based on a Review that concedes that there can be no clear proof of the effectiveness of such measures, and which, in the opinion of some of Northern Ireland's most distinguished opponents of terrorism, will give nothing but support to the terrorists in Northern Ireland.
In short, I oppose the Bill for reasons of both principle and practice. It seems to me to be wrong in principle because it proposes wholly unacceptable erosions of our civil liberties. It seems to me to be wrong in practice because, far from destroying or even disabling terrorism, it will have the effect of antagonising and alienating law-abiding British citizens.
The objections in principle and the objections in practice cannot be separated. Thanks to the Bill, Irishmen who hate and despise the IRA will be open to persuasion that this Parliament speaks eloquently of liberty from time to time but votes to abandon our cherished liberties when it is urged to do so by the Government.
I know that those of us who vote for the amendment but have voted for the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its orders in the past are required to reconcile those two particulars, and I propose to essay that task immediately. I do not think that performing that duty poses any great intellectual problem.
The origins of the prevention of terrorism powers are not in dispute. The Act which the Bill replaces is the child of what came to be called the Birmingham pub bombings of 1975. I recall that day very well. Six of my constituents were murdered. As a result of those murders — 21 murders in all—the maimings and the damage that was done on that night, the House and the whole country were in an emotional turmoil.
The draconian measures then advanced were accepted for a variety of reasons, all of which I supported and defended at the time and all of which seemed right and perhaps were right at the time. They ranged from the need


to take immediate powers to frustrate an imminent and widespread terrorist assault, which some people feared was a matter of days away, to the necessity of protecting the law-abiding majority of Irish citizens living here by demonstrating that the tiny minority of terrorists who lived amongst them would be weeded out and treated with no mercy.
In the eight years since the decision was taken the reasons advanced for renewing the prevention of terrorism powers have changed constantly. Last year's justification was that a few terrorists were still caught and that a great deal of intelligence about terrorists was still obtained.
I say at once, because of what the Secretary of State said in reply to my intervention, that I find the idea of imprisoning innocent men and women so that they may provide information for the police is a power that is inconsistent with the operation of a free society. It is no good the Secretary of State saying to the House that such powers have been endorsed by the courts. They have been endorsed by the courts because the House has passed laws which make it possible for the police to behave in that way. That is the most circuitous argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could possibly use. But I say what I tried to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman during his speech. The idea that innocent men and women may be held in custody for up to seven days simply to obtain information from them seems to me to be a denial of their liberties and a negation of the freedom that we ought to protect.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) argues as he has consistently throughout our debates on this matter. May I put to him a question that I think that it is important for him to answer? There are two conceptions of civil liberties. One is the right of someone freely to enter the country, which a cherished civil liberty, if anyone has the ability to do so. The other civil liberty is the right of an individual to go about his business free from molestation, the bomber and the murderer. That is the distinction that the right hon. Gentleman has to draw in striking the balance and defining what he regards as civil liberties.

Mr. Hattersley: There is a little intellectual confusion in the hon. Gentleman's terms, but I understand his point. He will recall that I said at the beginning of my speech —and I promise to return to it in a moment—that one of my objections to the Bill was that it did not fulfil the purpose which its proponents claimed. Far from beating the IRA, which I wish to do with as much fervour as the hon. Gentleman, in many ways it helps and comforts the IRA. I propose to turn to that in a moment.
I was trying to deal with the changing nature of the justifications for the prevention of terrorism powers. Once it was because of an imminent assault by terrorists and the need to protect the Irish population. Then it became the need to gather intelligence and to catch a few terrorists.

Mr. Brittan: I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent anything that I have said. If I have not made myself sufficiently clear, I would welcome a chance to clarify my views. I did not say that the purpose of the power was to obtain information. As the right hon. Gentleman will see from clause 12:
A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting

that he has been concerned in acts of terrorism or for anticipating that he may be concerned in them. The Secretary of State is then faced with the question whether to impose an exclusion order or bring a prosecution. What I have said is that even if, on evidential grounds or otherwise, it is not possible in those cases to bring a prosecution before the courts or even to impose an exclusion order, the fact that information of value may be obtained means that the exercise of the power has not been pointless even though the purpose achieved has not been the purpose enshrined in the statute.

Mr. Hattersley: I did not accuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman of regarding that as the sole purpose or virtue of the measure, although I think the records show that one of his predecessors said so. I was about to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has produced a new justification, which is, in part, the result of the Jellicoe report. That justification is the need to make sure that London, which is alleged to be a centre of international terrorism, is able to act against terrorism of all sorts.
That justification for what the Home Secretary is proposing is wholly bogus. We have coped during the past 10 years with the circumstances that the Jellicoe report describes, and I do not believe that, were it not for the Irish dimension, the idea of international terrorism would be brought forward as a justification for these powers.
The arguments for the powers have shifted from year to year. The previous Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, had two arguments. He argued that the decline of terrorism proved that the Act was working and must be retained. He also argued that the fact that terrorism was not declining proved that we needed the Act and must retain it. The arguments have always altered in accordance with the intellectual taste of the Minister, but one thing has been repeated time after time. One Home Secretary after another has either expressed the pious hope or made the confident assertion that the powers would not last for much longer. On every occasion, however, we are asked to extend them for a year, five years or an indefinite period. We are moving further and further away from the permanent abandonment of the rules, which would characterise a free society. Arbitrary arrest and arbitrary imprisonment are becoming more and more acceptable as a permanent part of our lives. For that reason, if for no other, a vote against the Second Reading of the Bill is justified.

Mr. Brittan: Although I was not dealing with these matters at the time, I understand it was only earlier this year that the Opposition began to vote against these provisions. What happened between 1982 and 1983 to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that a provision which, broadly speaking, he had been prepared to accept had become unacceptable?

Mr. Hattersley: Two things happened. First, I repeat that it is the permanence of the powers, by definition, that makes them more unacceptable. Secondly, the Government refuse to hold an inquiry into the necessity for the powers. The Governrnent have talked —the Home Secretary has talked today—as if Lord Jellicoe inquired into the necessity for the prevention of terrorism powers. In fact, Lord Jellicoe was specifically prevented from doing so by his terms of reference, which required him to


examine the powers on the assumption that they were necessary. That is the second point which makes us question the Government's judgment.
On 7 March, against my advice—I was in the No Lobby—the House voted to renew the legislation that will be replaced by this Bill. I said then that to arrest and imprison an innocent man or woman without warrant, and to hold that man or woman in custody without charge, was not only wrong in itself but represented the poising of the Government and the country at the top of a disastrously slippery slope. Once we considered the possibility of denying traditional liberties year after year, we could not know how far we would travel along that path. It is no coincidence that on 7 March the Government proposed that Irishmen—let us not be mealy-mouthed; we are talking about Irishmen—could be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned and banished to a specific part of the United Kingdom. On 3 June the Home Secretary proposed that Irishmen—he had Irishmen specifically in mind—could be hanged as though convicted, even though no jury had found them guilty of murder.
Once we are prepared to tolerate some erosion of civil liberties, there is no knowing what will follow. If we abandon the principle of rigid adherence to the rule of law and the protection of individual liberty, we cannot be sure what next step may appear acceptable because of our previous conduct.
Every Home Secretary who has advocated the powers under discussion has conceded that they infinge our traditional liberties. In 1981, the then Home Secretary said
they infringe our shared concept of civil liberties."—[Official Report, 18 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 341.]
In 1982, he was equally precise. He said:
The Prevention of Terrorism Act makes a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud".— [Official Report, 15 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 151.]
This year he was just as frank, describing the powers as making
sad inroads into our cherished traditions of civil liberties."— [Official Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 568.]
However, both the previous and present Home Secretary have always managed to reconcile themselves to these unhappy necessities by phrases such as the following, used by the then Home Secretary in March this year:
we must continue to use every practical and useful tool in our hand to frustrate tenon"— [Official Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 567.]
The Home Secretary concluded that the Act is a vital instrument to the end of frustrating terrorism.
Today, his successor has said very much the same thing. He has said that in other circumstances we would regard these powers as unacceptable, but that they are necessary if terrorism is to be beaten. He says that it is necessary to take powers under part I of the Bill to proscribe organisations that promote and encourage violence. If it is any consolation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I can tell him that that is the one part of the Bill with which I am in sympathy. I can see no reason why we should tolerate collections on behalf of, and demonstrations in support of, men and women who advocate murder as an instrument of political policy.
The Government have, however, been remarkably selective in their choice of proscribed organisations. I would have more faith in the Government's objectivity on those matters if more organisations, rather than fewer,

were proscribed. However, I do not argue this evening about the advisability or propriety of part I of the Bill. It is in reading part II that I begin to feel that the Government are wrong in both principle and practice. Part II proposes internal banishment — a penalty unknown in England between Tudor times and 1976. That penalty has always seemed to me to be deeply offensive to the citizens of Northern Ireland — the Province which becomes the receptacle for most of the excluded persons. I welcome the changes from previous procedure proposed in the Bill. I welcome the decision to make it impossible to exclude a person from an area in which he or she has lived for years. I welcome the limited life of the exclusion order. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is no longer with us. I hope that the implication of his wish will not be granted, and that the exclusion orders will not be renewed time after time at the point when they lapse. The principle of requiring a re-application seems to me to be right.
Notwithstanding those two improvements, the Opposition's argument remains one of principle. We are asked to support the internal exile of what amounts to innocent men and women. I shall turn to the concept and definition of innocent men and women in a moment, because my remarks apply with equal force to part IV. Indeed, that part is just as objectionable as part II.
Part IV proposes powers of arrest and prolonged detention. It proposes 48 hours' detention on the sole authority of the police, and a further five days on the Home Secretary's fiat. Although I welcome the small revisions that allow the Home Secretary more flexibility in deciding whether a man or woman should have an extended detention of one, two, three, four or five days, the unacceptable principle remains. According to our law, arrested persons should be brought to court as soon as possible, because, uncharged and untried, they are innocent. The men and women about whom we are talking who are excluded from one part of the United Kingdom and who are arrested and held without charge or conviction are innocent people.
I have made that point in previous debates and someone has always said, as the evening wore on, "Ah, such people may not have been convicted by the courts, but we know them to be guilty even if we cannot prove it." It is said that that is why such people are arrested, and that even if we do not know them to be guilty and cannot prove their guilt, we know that they associate with people who are guilty and reprehensible in every way. If there is any logic, the logic behind the power must lie in the assumption that there are such guilty men and women who cannot be convicted according to the process of the law, but who must nevertheless be detained. I can think of no more dangerous denial of liberty than taking powers to arrest and detain on the basis that such people cannot be convicted in court, but that, as the Government know that they are guilty, they must nevertheless be imprisoned.
Unless we know a man to be guilty and can convict him in this country at least, he should not be arrested, detained or held in those circumstances.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend remember what happened recently in Zimbabwe? The very Conservative Members who seek to introduce this Bill cried out loud—quite rightly in my opinion — about those who were incarcerated by the Government there—[HON. MEMBERS: "For how long?"] —although they had not been found guilty. It does not


matter for how long. It is the principle that counts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is making the point that the double standards being employed by Conservative Members cannot possibly lead to anything that will help to end the intractable struggle that we are all involved in.

Mr. Hattersley: I had intended to avoid international comparisons but some Conservative Members cried out "For how long?". It seems that we have a new concept of freedom—that it is a free society if people are arrested and detained without trial for a little while, but that it is not a free society if they are arrested and detained for a long time. That is a new concept of our peerless liberties and internal freedoms. However, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seems to be somewhat agitated and may wish to intervene.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was arguing about the length of time. He said that it was the understanding in our law that it was all right to arrest someone provided that he is brought before the court as soon as possible. As he well knows, the law does not specify any time. It may be 24, 36 or 48 hours. If someone is detained for longer than that it is wrong. Therefore, I do not quite understand why he should object to hon. Members talking about the length of time.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall explain the position to the right hon. Gentleman. I had assumed that he understood the legislation before us. My complaint is that according to our normal procedures a man or woman is brought to trial at the first opportunity. Under the powers contained in the Bill a person is arrested and detained and not brought to trial at all. It is not the intention to bring him to trial. Therefore, there is a substantial difference in the two judicial systems.
I shall remind the House of the statistics. Since 1974 295 exclusion orders have been made in Great Britain, but only 52 of those affected have even been charged with any offence. The other 243 have not even been charged with breaking the law in any way. The position is even more disturbing given the record for arrest and detention. Up to the end of last year 5,555 people had been arrested under the Act. Of them, 88 per cent. were released without charge or exclusion. Only 83 of those 5,555 individuals were found guilty of any offence under the Act. The legislation is intended to apply to people who are technically, and therefore literally, innocent. That is wholly unacceptable, not least — to repeat the amendment — because the necessity, validity and efficacy of the provisions are by no means proven.
The Home Secretary tells us that Lord Jellicoe concluded that the measure was necessary. I do not dispute that, so the Home Secretary can relax. However, by his terms of reference, Lord Jellicoe was required to conclude that the measure was necessary.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to Lord Jellicoe. In paragraph 1 Lord Jellicoe said that before he took on the assignment on the terms that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined, he satisfied himself that
some form of special legislation was indeed required to deal with the continuing threat posed by terrorism throughout the United Kingdom.
He then said:

I have since become convinced, in the course of the more detailed inquiries I have carried out in the last nine months or so, that if special legislation effectively reduces terrorism, as I believe it does, it should be continued as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains.
Therefore, it will not do to say that Lord Jellicoe's terms of reference did not allow him to consider whether the legislation was necessary. He satisfied himself of that before he took on the assignment.

Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary is going to continue to interrupt me, I hope that in future he will address himself to the point that I am making. I do not want to diminish the authority or validity of Lord Jellicoe's work in any way. I simply assert something that is irrefutable. Lord Jellicoe's terms of reference required him to consider not the necessity for such powers but their operation. The terms of reference are specific. Had Lord Jellicoe wished to report that no such powers were necessary, it would not have been within his terms of reference.
However, Lord Jellicoe said something that I hope the Home Secretary will listen to carefully and try to understand. In paragraph 55 Lord Jellicoe said:
There can be no clear proof that the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are, or are not, an essential weapon in the fight against terrorism.
If we are to give Lord Jellicoe the credit that the Home Secretary demands, and which I am sure Lord Jellicoe deserves, we must give proper weight to that judgment. That judgment is as it says it is. The Government are taking these powers not because they are certain that they will in some way assist in the fight against terrorism, but because they might do so and because we hope —[Interruption.] Perhaps the Home Secretary would like me to say that such powers are being taken because Lord Jellicoe thinks that they will have that effect. Others have thought that they will not have that effect.
I hope that the Home Secretary will calm himself and accept that in paragraph 55 there is that agnostic judgment about the efficacy and validity of those powers. In the name of a judgment that cannot be proved either way, 500 innocent men and women are locked up, and 250 innocent men and women are banished. That cannot be justified in a free society.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Surely it is preposterous to refer selectively to paragraph 55, in which the noble Lord referred to his ability to take a more informed view, without repeating the conclusion to that section, which appears in paragraph 65. In bold type it says:
In the light of my enquiries and of the evidence submitted to me, I have therefore come to the firm conclusion that if the power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped in dealing with terrorists.
Surely selective quotations from Lord Jellicoe's report will not help anyone. I hope that the Labour party will have the intellectual honesty to take Lord Jellicoe's report as a whole.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to tell him that I agree with Lord Jellicoe that there is a case for these powers, I give him the pleasure of conceding that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the point that I am making. On my and Lord Jellicoe's judgment there is no certainty in these matters. We are sending innocent men and women to prison in the hope that this will prevent


terrorism. Lord Jellicoe and, I suspect, the Home Secretary believe that it will help to prevent terrorism. However, we are not acting with any degree of certainty.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I give way for the last time because I am delaying other speakers.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: What clear proof—I use Lord Jellicoe's words—would the right hon. Gentleman require if he were the Home Secretary faced with the problem of countering terrorism? How can there be clear proof? What evidence, proof or facts would the right hon. Gentleman require if he were in the position of my right hon. and learned Friend who has responsibility for these matters?

Mr. Hattersley: The Labour Party would do a great deal more than has been done before we started locking up and exiling innocent men and women. That is the nature of my complaint. I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands it.
Lord Jellicoe made another judgment about the continuation of these powers. He said that the legislation
should remain in force only while it continues to be effective, only if its aims cannot be achieved by use of the general law, if it does not make unacceptable inroads on civil liberties".
Before the Home Secretary leaps to his feet to say that on all three points Lord Jellicoe answered yes, I say that I know that to be the case. However, on a closer examination it is difficult to say that the three rules which Lord Jellicoe laid down have been observed.
We all agree —even the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison)—that the effectiveness of the rules cannot be certain. The Home Secretary may insist that there is some certainty and says that if we knew what the Government know but cannot tell us we would understand how necessary these measures are. That is not an acceptable basis on which to pass legislation in a free Parliament, nor is it acceptable for a free Parliament to be told that terrorism can be combated in this fashion through the collection of information. That is an argument for perpetual powers while even the slightest degree of terrorism continues.
I fear that, although the five-year limit to the operation of the Bill reduces the permanence of the powers—at least, in the Bill's title — it will reduce the annual scrutiny that we give to the legislation as it comes up for renewal every year. Many of my hon. Friends would argue that there has been insufficient scrutiny. In March this year we scrutinised the legislation in a one-and-a-half hour debate after 10 pm. I do not doubt that, in future, Government business managers will say to the Opposition, "Of course, we cannot have a full day's debate. After all, the legislation lasts only five years." I believe that we will reduce rather than increase — as the Home Secretary suggests—the time for scrutiny of this Bill.
Much of the object of the Bill could be achieved if the courts were used for the purposes outlined in the Bill. There is not a scrap of evidence in the Jellicoe report to demonstrate that the courts cannot be used in this way. There is an assertion, but no justifying evidence, that the courts could be used a great deal more than they are at the moment to prevent genuinely suspected terrorists from entering this country, rather than having general trawls,

and to obtain convictions from guilty persons rather than act as intelligence-gathering institutions. Surely the question about unacceptable inroads into civil liberties can have only one answer.
Another question posed by Lord Jellicoe is whether sufficient powers would help to defeat terrorism or whether they would hinder it. I remind the House of the words of the noble Lord Fitt, whose judgment on these matters was properly respected and whose heroic opposition to terrorism was properly admired in the House.
He had no doubt about the effect of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on the prospects of terrorism and terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. First, it had the definite effect of convincing law-abiding Irishmen that they were being discriminated against by the Parliament in Westminster. The Act was intended to distinguish between them and others. The Act was the Act that bit on them when, for wholly legitimate purposes, they came to the United Kingdom. The Act was something that enabled the forces of terrorism to argue in Derry and in Belfast that there is one law for the English but the normal rules of law do not apply in Northern Ireland, when it is convenient for the Imperial Parliament, as they still call it, to erode the proper civil liberties that should apply to us all.
I have no doubt that Lord Fitt was correct constantly to argue that the existence of those powers, instead of driving a wedge between terrorists in Northern Ireland and loyal and law-abiding Irishmen, drove a wedge between the law-abiding Irish community and the Parliament here in Westminster. That wedge was partly driven in because of the way in which the law was applied.
If we are dealing with selective quotations from the Jellicoe report, I hope that I may select three that the Home Secretary did not think it worth while mentioning in his speech today. The criticism embodied in them is in no way accommodated in the new Bill and it was not even acknowledged by the Home Secretary in his speech.
Lord Jellicoe, in paragraph 134 — I provide that information for assiduous hon. Members on the Back Benches—said that there was some truth in the criticism that the powers were normally used against the casual and the unkempt. In paragraph 101, Lord Jellicoe said that the officers at some ports were often tempted to use the powers to question visitors about non-terrorist crimes. In paragraph 101, Lord Jellicoe said that it was relatively common for five or six days of detention to elapse before access to solicitors was permitted.
If we are not to alienate the Irish population, the Home Secretary must turn his mind to that matter. He has not done so today, nor, as I understand it, has he done so within his Department. Because of such facts, as well as the existence of these powers, terrorists are able to argue that Irishmen are afforded a second-class sort of justice when they arrive in Britain. And because we enable them to do that, it gives bonus and benefit only to the enemies of law and order rather than to those of us who want to see law and order throughout the entire United Kingdom.
I end with my final quotation from Lord Jellicoe's report. In paragraph 10, Lord Jellicoe says:
The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate … any section of the law-abiding population".
Because we believe that they do, we argue that as the practical reason for voting against the Bill. Add to that our


argument in principle—the case that civil liberties are intolerably eroded—and I believe that the case for the reasoned amendment becomes unassailable. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it tonight.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: For 25 minutes or half an hour we have been listening to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) attempting to explain why in 1983 he is advising his right hon. and hon. Friends to behave in exactly the opposite way to that in which they behaved in 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979 and for all the years since 1974 when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends held the responsibility for this country's affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation of that volte face is unconvincing. He called the arguments of principle in aid a great deal. He argued that it is wrong for us to lock people up for more than the minimum period of 24, 36 or 48 hours or to stop them moving freely about the country. I agree that such action is undesirable, but it was equally undesirable in 1979. If he thinks that such action is undesirable now, why did the right hon. Gentleman vote for it in 1979? He did not address himself to that part of the argument. I still do not fully understand why. It is rather sad that the right hon. Gentleman should put himself up for—or be put up to argue—the case that he has made today.
I agree that we are concerned with principle in this case. I dislike the idea of parting from the principle that if a person is locked up he should be brought before a magistrate as soon as possible. That principle is one of the great strengths of our system and I dislike departing from it as much as does the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Jellicoe report many times. I should like to make just one quotation. Paragraph 65 reads:
I have therefore come to the firm conclusion that if the power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped in dealing with terrorists.
That is the conclusion that I reached when I had responsibility for Northern Ireland. It is the conclusion that anyone who has to deal with this hideous problem and tries to preserve peace reaches. That is why I support my right hon. and learned Friend and why we should give the Bill a Second Reading.
We do not want a Bill such as this, but nor do we want the terrorism that has been responsible for so many hideous crimes for so long. Like Lord Jellicoe, I see no sign of terrorism diminishing. No hon. Member can say that he believes that there will be no more terrorism in a year's time. I wish that we could say that, but we cannot. The Government and their agents, the police, need extra powers to deal with this phenomenon.
My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with the Bill in some detail. He told us that part IV deals with arrest and detention and that part II deals with exclusion. There are differences between them. Clause 12(1), (2) and (3) enable a person to be arrested on suspicion and detained for 48 hours and the Secretary of State to extend that period to a maximum of seven days if he thinks fit. My right hon. and learned Friend told us that this part of the Act is not confined to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend drew the House's attention to 12(2)(b) which refers to

acts of terrorism of any other description except acts connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom".
That is odd as it appears to enable a constable to arrest and keep for 48 hours—and for the Secretary of State to extend that period of detention to seven days—the sole survivor of those who occupied the Iranian embassy a few years ago. It appears that it would also enable the Secretary of State to extend the detention of a person who broke into the Ulster Office in London and held people who worked there captive in pursuit of the aims of his organisation in Northern Ireland. However, clause 12(2)(b) would not enable the Home Secretary to do anything about a person who broke into the offices of the Department of the Environment and held many of the staff at gunpoint, demanding that the Secretary of State for the Environment guarantee that the greater Manchester council not be abolished. That, too, seems rather odd. Such acts are all the same and are carried out for the same motive, yet only some offenders can be caught under the Act. I should lake my right hon. and learned Friend to examine that matter.
Part IV provides powers that are not confined to terrorist acts concerned with Northern Ireland whereas those provided by part II are. That, too, is curious. An international terrorist, for example, can be arrested and held for seven days under part IV but he cannot be excluded under part II. I should have thought that the most sensible course of action would be to stop him entering the country in the first place. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he thought that he had powers under immigration legislation to stop such a person coming here. I am not sure about that.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, what happens if that person is already here and has a right to be here? Immigration legislation will riot help the Home Secretary then. Many of us have experience of immigration laws, how they work and the safeguards that we have properly insisted upon. As a result someone who wants to come to Britain is often able to spin out his stay here, albeit not exactly where he wants to be, for months. The Act enables an excluded person to be got rid of in seven days plus such time as it takes the Home Secretary to consider what his adviser says. That need riot be more than two days. That process is a much cleaner, quicker and more effective method of dealing with terrorists. My right hon. and learned Friend would be prudent to re-examine this part of the Act to assess whether it would be useful to extend to international terrorists powers of exclusion that are now used in respect of acts connected with Northern Ireland.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman worried that someone who is likely to be subject to an exclusion order has no right to know that he is under suspicion, that he has no right to know whether there is any evidence against him, that he has no right to cross-examine such evidence if there be any, that he has no right to a trial or public hearing, that he has no right to know on what grounds, if any, representations that he has made have been rejected and that he has no right to appeal to the court?

Sir Humphrey Atkins: Yes. I shall explain why shortly. As Lord Jellicoe says, such decisions are Executive ones, not those of the courts. If they were, people would come before the courts. The hon. Lady can argue that such powers should not exist. I believe that they should. I am suggesting that if they exist my right hon. and


learned Friend should consider exclusion as he might find it helpful—it would certainly be more logical—if he had such powers in connection with offences other than those to do with Northern Ireland.
I occasionally used the Secretary of State's power under clause 12(3) to extend the period of detention. It was never an easy power to use. I was always anxious that I was not doing the right thing by signing, or withholding my signature from, an application. Arising out of that difficulty, I was glad to see Lord Jellicoe's recommendation that, by administrative means, the Home Secretary should ensure that he is given more information to help him make up his mind about whether to sign an application and that the matter should be followed up. If an application is granted there should always be a report of its outcome. Both those procedures are helpful, first, in enabling the Home Secretary to make up his mind and, secondly, to those making the application, who will know that it is subject to scrutiny.
In paragraph 41, page 15, of his report Lord Jellicoe states:
The legislation provides that 'the Secretary of State' may extend a period of detention. This does not mean that an extension has to be in writing under the Secretary of State's own hand, and it could in law be carried out on his behalf by an official. However, while there have been rare occasions when authority to detain beyond 48 hours has been granted on the responsibility of an official, the application has been seen and approved by a minister as soon as possible thereafter.
Soon after I assumed my responsibilities in Northern Ireland, I came across a case where an application has been signed by an official, and I immediately gave instructions that that was never to happen again. Obviously, I wished to sign applications myself, if that were physically possible, and if I could not, I made it clear that in my Department no officials could sign it, only Ministers, who were answerable to me and ultimately to the House. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that he wished to follow that course. All right hon. and hon. Members would wish him to reiterate that statement and especially his assurance that applications will never be signed by officials.
There is no crime of terrorism known to our law. All crimes committed by terrorists are crimes in themselves, whatever the motive: murder, causing bodily harm, kidnapping and destruction of property and so on. Terrorists are criminals — no more and no less. However, because the Bill is entitled the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and because we believe that it is right to give the Secretary of State special powers to bring such people before the courts to prevent their committing further offences, we must define their acts. Clause 14 does that. It states:
'Terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear".
I dislike that definition, which was given in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976 and in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, because of the word "political". Political aims and objectives are respectable, and all right hon. and hon. Members have them, but violence is not respectable. I fear that the definition does not help us. We have extradition treaties with a range of countries. From time to time we seek to have extradited from those countries somebody who is wanted here in connection with a crime committed

in pursuit of terrorist activities. As we all know, in more than one fairly good democratic country we have lost, and the person we want is not extradited because he goes to the courts and claims that his acts were political. I do not agree with that. I do not agree that, because the motive for murdering someone is political, it is any better than murdering someone for his money. However, it seems to work in some countries to our disadvantage. Such people can claim that their acts are political by referring to our legislation. They can say, "It says that it was political in the British Act." I wish to get rid of that word.
We all know what we mean by "terrorism". We do not mean terrorising elderly ladies in order to steal their money, although that is just as terrifying. We mean people who wish to overthrow or to divert the Government of the country. I am not competent to suggest an alternative definition—others could do that better than I— but I suggest the definition in clause 3(6) at the top of page 4, which is
acts of terrorism … designed to influence public opinion or Government policy".
That is not ideal, but it is better than the definition in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will address his mind to the matter to try to find a more satisfactory definition.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The inclusion of the word "political" here is not so much hallowed by our domestic municipal law but is a commonly accepted principle of public international law in the context of extradition, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The political exception in matters of extradition has operated not just for decades but since well into the last century and has given rise to little difficulty.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: If one believes, as I do, that murder is murder whatever the cause, all that I can say is that it should not operate in that way.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Humphrey Atkins: No, I will not, because I am about to conclude my remarks, and there is little time for other hon. Members to join in the debate because we started late.
I entirely support my right hon. and learned Friend in bringing forward the Bill. It contains several alterations, all of which are more liberating, as suggested by Lord Jellicoe, whose review has been most helpful and to whom we owe a great debt of thanks. I am sure that we need the powers. I hope that we shall not need them for the full five years of the Act's life, but I have a nasty feeling that we may.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Any form of legislation that introduces not even a judicial power but an Executive power of banishment must be extremely unwelcome, for the idea of banishment is completely foreign to our idea of law in the United Kingdom. For we should bear in mind that in this debate we are talking about a United Kingdom problem. We are not talking about banishing people to a foreign country across a hostile water; we are talking to a considerable extent about banishing them from the major parts of the United Kingdom to another part. Therefore, we should hesitate strongly before adopting such Executive powers.
Introduced as it was by a Labour Government, and renewed by a Labour Government in 1976, prevention of terrorism legislation has come to have a public perception which we are forced to accept: not only does the public accept it, but it has been accepted by politicians at both ends of the political spectrum in the House during the years. I suspect that were the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) the Home Secretary now, he too would be introducing legislation strikingly similar to this.
Responsible Governments and, indeed, the public rightly regard it as the duty of the Government to protect the maximum number of members of the public possible; to protect the public from outrages such as the Regents Park massacre, and the Birmingham pub bombings years earlier. Sadly, there is no evidence that the likelihood of outrages of that sort has diminished. Therefore, with very grave misgivings the parliamentary Liberal party has decided that it must support the principle of this legislation.
It is important to bear in mind that we are not judging a terrorism Bill as in the past this House has, for example, judged a theft Bill or a homicide Bill. We are judging a Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the very idea and definition of which involves the concept of Executive as opposed to judicial powers. If we accept the need for those Executive powers, we must in principle support a Bill of this type. However, in Committee we shall seek adamantly to obtain changes in the Bill because we regard some of its provisions as far more draconian than are necessary for such extreme legislation.
I remind the House that Lord Shackleton—we have almost forgotten about him in this debate—said in paragraph 159 of his report in 1978:
I do not believe that legislation of this kind should have any degree of permanence without a continuing and careful scrutiny of its operation and its implications for civil liberties. Although it is not for me to judge what measures nay, in the longer term, be necessary to deal with terrorism, I hope that the temporary concept of this legislation will not diminish.
Although Lord Jellicoe much more recently spoke of a maximum duration of five years, we Liberals are of the view that a five-year maximum is too long, that three years is quite long enough and that the whole matter should be fully argued once again, not merely in terms of annual review, but in relation to a new Bill, if need be, in three years time. We shall so argue.
Another matter that causes us particular concern is the duration of exclusion orders. While we accept that, unfortunately, they are necessary, exclusion orders may have drastic effects on the families and working and business lives of those who are excluded. We must remember that these are often—indeed, usually—people against whom no crime has been proved or even alleged. We are of the view that an exclusion period greater than two years exacerbates these problems, and we shall oppose that. We shall do so bearing in mind our view that exclusion orders of themselves offend the European Convention on Human Rights. While at present we accept their necessity, we feel that not enough attention has been given to the relationship between this proposed legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights. We are also worried about the lack of provision for safeguarding the rights and interests of those who are detained.
It shows a limited regard for this House that the Government have not seen fit to publish the new Police and Criminal Evidence Bill before this debate. It makes

one wonder whether the Government want to hurry the Bill through because of their embarrassment at not meeting all the Jellicoe demands in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Let me take a little time to remind the House of some of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations, which are closely intertwined with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and which demanded that a responsible conduct of this matter required the publication of that Bill before today's debate.
In conclusion 17 on page 91 of his report Lord Jellicoe said:
Subject to additional or alternative provisions relating to welfare, access to legal advice and the right not to be held incommunicado, all provisions of the Home Office draft code relating to the treatment of persons in police custody should apply to persons arrested or detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in England and Wales.
In conclusion 21 on page 92 he said:
The absolute right of access to a solicitor after 48 hours' detention under the emergency legislation, which applies in Northern Ireland, should apply also throughout Great Britain for persons held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In relation to England and Wales, this absolute right should be included in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill; in relation to Scotland, pending an appropriate legislative opportunity, it should be incorporated in force orders".
The noble Lord said in conclusion 22:
Persons detained under the Act for more than 48 hours anywhere in the United Kingdom should be entitled to legal advice on a similar basis to 'ordinary' suspects in England and Wales under the proposals in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill".
In conclusion 23 Lord Jellicoe said:
It should be the duty of the uniformed custody officer, after the suspect has spent 48 hours in custody under the Act, to remind him of his absolute right to consult a solicitor and to ask him if he wishes to exercise this right. The reply should be entered on the custody record, and the suspect invited to sign. If he refuses to sign, this should be noted. This provision should apply throughout the United Kingdom and should be incorporated, as appropriate, in force orders and in the draft code relating to the treatment of suspects".
I quote finally from conclusion 25 on page 92, which stated:
Any person detained at a police station under the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be entitled (a) to consult privately with a solicitor at any time during his detention, and (b) to have a friend or relative or other person known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare informed without delay of the fact and place of his detention, unless an officer of superintendent rank or above believes on reasonable grounds that such consultation or notification would have one of the four consequences set out at recommendation 24. In the case of both (a) and (b), the police should lose this limited discretion to refuse on the expiry of 48 hours' detention. These provisions should apply throughout the United Kingdom, and should be included, as appropriate, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and in force orders".
I understood the Home Secretary to be giving some assurances that in certain respects the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill would reflect recommendations made by Lord Jellicoe in relation to that Bill, but I did not understand him to give the assurance that all those requirements would be met in that Bill. We just do not know, because the Bill has not been published. We shall be watchful of that. It is crucial that Lord Jellicoe's recommendations in relation to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill should not be ignored, for they ask for no more than the signs which mark out a society which cares about fundamental civil rights as compared with one which does not. In deciding whether to continue our support when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House, we


shall scrutinise closely the amendments that it has been possible to push through in Committee and the Government's attitude to them.
We are especially concerned, too, because the Bill fails to provide another important safety measure — that "continuing scrutiny" of which Lord Shackleton spoke so many years ago. Some form of continuing monitoring of the legislation from week to week is needed — if necessary by reference to a Select Committee, or by other means — so that the next inquiry on Shackleton or Jellicoe lines will be founded not on speculation but on evidence.

7 pm

Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be called to make my maiden speech. I make this speech representing the maiden constituency of Leicestershire, North-West, which makes it a double first.
Let me tell the House something of my constituency. It was created out of what I would claim were the best parts of the constituencies of Bosworth and Loughborough. To the north there is the historic town of Castle Donington, near to which is the east midlands airport, which is soon to have its runway extended. There is also the Castle Donington race track, which will host the Formula 1 British grand prix in the not-too-distant future.
To the west is the town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch. I hasten to assure the House that the town of Ashby has been there a good deal longer than I have and, as far as I know, my family did not take their name from it. Hon. Members will recall that Ashby has a castle which was destroyed by the parliamentary forces in the civil war; a castle which was made famous by Sir Walter Scott in his novel Ivanhoe. To the east of the constituency is the town of Shepshed and to the south the important town of Coalville, which, as its name implies, was founded on the Leicestershire coalfield. The pits of this coalfield are among the oldest in this country and have a wealth of things of industrial and archaeological interest. Robert Stevenson designed and built machinery for these mines and it is hoped that they will be retained for posterity as museums.
Sadly, the mines in the Coalville area are about to close and we shall be facing an unemployment rate as high as anywhere in the country. This is a matter which I shall be anxious to raise at another time, in another debate. Hon. Members will appreciate that I represent a diverse constituency, consisting as it does of rural areas, some light industry and the mines.
I pay tribute to my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). My constituents were fortunate in being represented by those two hon. Members, each of whom, in his different way, looked after their interests with such care and gave so much to the area. I am grateful to both of them for their help and kindness before, during and since the general election.
As to the Bill that we are debating, I represent middle England and I feel that I also represent the values of middle Englishmen and Englishwomen. We have a justified pride in our great institutions, and in particular in our legal system. As a barrister, practising at the criminal bar, I share in that pride. One of the most important rights, if not the most important right, is that of liberty. No Englishman

may be kept in custody indefinitely, without charge, and without being brought before the courts. If such an event were to occur, the prerogative writ of habeas corpus would be issued. In recent cases, the courts have been granting this writ after suspects have been detained for 48 hours, and rightly so, for a man's liberty is not lightly to be taken away. Those who have seen the effects of imprisonment know that 24 hours is a long time, and 48 hours is a very long time.
I am pleased to see, in clause 12(3), that that period of 48 hours is given statutory force. However, the rest of that clause effectively restricts the court's powers to grant a writ of habeas corpus, as the Home Secretary is authorised to extend the period of detention to up to five days. Therefore, we are seeing an erosion of an important principle which has evolved over the centuries, and it is an erosion which can be supported only because of the exceptional nature of the problems confronting us and, more importantly, because the Act, if we pass the Bill, will have a limited life.
Most lawyers dislike evidence that is obtained from a suspect after a long period of detention. The longer a person is detained, the less value anything that he may say has, and I have experience of false confessions. While these exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures, I am pleased that the Home Secretary will consider carefully each application for an extension. The clause should not be used as a cover for offences that fall outside the Bill.
I should like to see a safeguard that prevents any evidence obtained in interviews with a subject during a period of extended detention being used for offences other than those under the Bill. We must be vigilant and not let these terrorist organisations erode our liberties, because that is what they have set out to do. Having said that, I thank the House for listening so courteously to me and I shall support the Bill as a necessary measure.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on his maiden speech. He spoke with clarity, he is articulate and he showed an interest in the part of the United Kingdom from which I come. I hope that he will continue to show the same interest in our problems and in the difficulties that we face.
I have lived with the awful reality of terrorism for 14 years, and when I examine the Bill I find it difficult to accept that virtually every variation from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 appears to be designed to give greater rights to the villains—in this case the terrorists—while the Bill appears to take little or no account of the victim. I would find it most disquieting if any hon. Members were to seek to condone this approach by their arguments.
Part I does not apply to Northern Ireland, only to Great Britain. Nevertheless, one must view it with scepticism, especially subsection (1)(c). One knows that it will simply not be enforced. The equivalent part of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is never implemented and the Provisional Sinn Fein, in the persons of Gerry Adams, Danny Morrison and Owen Canon, regularly contravene this law with impunity. The right of those who speak or act in support of proscribed organisations to broadcast by radio or television in


Northern Ireland or in Great Britain has not been dealt with. However, such actions contravene if not the letter, the spirit of the Act.
The Provisional Sinn Fein has never equivocated in its advocacy of the merits of republican violence, which in today's terms means the genocide of Protestant farmers such as Cyrus Campbell in my constituency, a man who lived and worked close to the frontier with the Irish Republic. At least in relation to such broadcasts the Irish Republic's laws are more realistic than the laws that exist in the United Kingdom.
In part II, it appears that there is no longer any justification for restricting these measures to terrorism specifically related to Northern Ireland. The world today is brimful of terrorism and people are living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that it will not spill over into the United Kingdom, with a view, in the words of the Bill, to influencing opinion and policy on matters all round the globe. As it stands, the Bill is thus an anachronism.
The Bill is an anachronism in another respect. The original legislation was passed in circumstances, I believe, of near panic, when the rate of terrorist murders here and in Ulster was immensely higher than it is today. If this legislation were being introduced now for the first time, no one would dare to argue in favour of the insulting division it creates between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or of making it possible within the United Kingdom for a citizen to be ordered to go and live in another part.
To those who advocate that powers to arrest and detain for a period of up to seven days should be set aside because that may lead to an erosion of liberty, I would point out that both Lord Jellicoe and those of us who have to live with terrorism recognise that there are times when good intelligence—sure intelligence—and admissible evidence are not the same thing. In the war against terrorism good intelligence can be ignored only if we are prepared to sacrifice the safety of the innocent. It is the duty of the police to act on good intelligence in an effort to obtain, by questioning, admissible evidence.
I ask whether 48 hours or 96 hours or seven days are too long, or not long enough, to hold someone about whom there is good intelligence. I do not know, but I know that if legislation were incorporated in this Bill to ensure that it was not possible for a suspect to have the automatic and inherent right to remain silent when asked a reasonable question, we should not find that, again and again, the guilty go free and the innocent continue to be slaughtered.
Today we should direct our efforts to the maintenance of public confidence in the law's ability to suppress terrorism and to support the security forces in that effort. I fear that this Bill will do little to protect British citizens in Northern Ireland. Let me rephrase what I said at the start. Why have so many hon. Members argued to give greater rights to the felon—in this case, the terrorist— but appear to take little or, indeed, no account of the victim? Unless the Bill can be strengthened, and unless there is a removal of the anachronisms in part II, to which I alluded, my colleagues and I will have the greatest reservations about supporting its Third Reading.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). When he speaks about terrorism he does not speak in an academic manner. He has the knowledge

which is derived from representing a constituency which suffers from terrorism and which is close to that border across which so many terrorists escape and take refuge. I am glad to follow the hon. Member also because I agree with his strictures on part II, the provision which denies persons from Northern Ireland the same rights as other United Kingdom citizens to move and to reside within the United Kingdom.
Since direct rule was brought in we have been accustomed to Northern Ireland being used either as an assault course for cadet Ministers or as Siberia for dissident Ministers and their disciples. However, Northern Ireland should not be used, as Ulster people complain, as a dustbin for suspects from Great Britain. Most of the traffic, as the Jellicoe report explains, is in one direction. Paragraph 165 says:
Up to the end of 1982, 230 excluded persons had been removed from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and 37 from Great Britain to the Republic of Ireland.
The power has been exercised predominantly against citizens of the United Kingdom.
Lord Jellicoe, to whom the House owes a deep debt of gratitude. recommended, and the Bill proposes, certain mitigation of the power of exclusion exercised hitherto, but it remains a mild version of the internal exile which some very distinguished Russians endured under the Tsars and since. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not appeal to the Conservative Benches because, as the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, had he been sitting where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sits he would be proposing or supporting legislation of this kind. Nevertheless, he spoke of internal banishment and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of internal banishment as provided for in this legislation. Indeed, it conflicts with what Lord Jellicoe says in paragraph 11, that
special anti-terrorist legislation should be framed and administered so as to minimise rather than to accentuate the differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom".
I expect that I am not the only hon. Member to have received a report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. That is the body in Northern Ireland presided over by the right hon. David Bleakley. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights describes exclusion as
punitive in effect … and a diminution of an important civil right.
It says later:
As Lord Jellicoe conceded, much the same arguments apply to justify internment without trial".
I would describe this power of exclusion as interning someone on a long lead. It would be more honest and more efficacious, and less destructive of family life and ties, to reintroduce and use highly selectively the power of internment, later called detention, which in earlier troubles proved successful in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, against the major organisation proscribed in this legislation, an organization—the IRA —which is the common enemy of the Republic and the United Kingdom.
I make only that one point. I put it forward not dogmatically but for consideration, and I support the Bill.

Ms. Harriet Harman: It is clear to me that undermining the administration of justice—which the Bill does—will do two things. First, it is unfair and


unjust to innocent individuals haplessly caught up in its sweeping powers. Secondly, far from reducing terrorism, it assists it, by providing terrorists with a fresh source of grievance.
I wish to deal with three points in the Bill: first, the banning of organisations which "appear" to be concerned with terrorism; secondly, the offence of withholding information about terrorism; and thirdly, exclusion orders.
First, the powers which the Bill seeks to give Ministers to deal with organisations which seem to be concerned with terrorism are very wide and dangerous. The Bill seeks not to ban the Irish Republican Army or the Irish National Liberation Army, but to give the Minister powers to ban organisations which "appear" to him to be involved with terrorism. Once such a power is on the statute book the House will have no control over its use. If it appears to the Minister that an organisation is involved in terrorism, no inquiry is required, no evidence need be produced, there is no right of appeal to the court and no parliamentary debate need take place. The power could be used to ban those organisations whose supporters regard them as political parties. That is the power that the Government are seeking to place on the statute book.
We have no business to put into Ministers' hands powers so open to misuse. It is not good enough to say that we should trust the Minister and rely on his good will. Parliament must be vigilant. We must guard our democratic rights. We have no business to abrogate those rights to a Minister. We must also remember that, however offensive the views put forward, the right to express them is a basic civil liberty. If individuals conspire to commit a crime or incite someone else to commit a crime, they are guilty of a specific criminal offence. That is how the matter should be dealt with, not by the wholesale banning of organisations. Conservative Members have said that terrorists are criminals. I agree, and those who commit criminal acts should have the criminal law used against them.
Secondly, I am deeply worried about the offence of withholding information. My hon. Friends and I are in favour of the public co-operating with the police when they seek to investigate or prevent criminal offences from being committed. It is a contradiction in terms to believe that people can be forced to co-operate or to seek the cooperation of a community by threatening its members with a criminal charge if they do not co-operate.
The Bill also undermines the fundamental principle of the right to silence. We must remember that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty and is not obliged to incriminate himself. The offence of withholding information cuts right across such a principle. Furthermore, it cuts across the fundamental right of an innocent person to go about his business without being arrested or detained unless he himself is suspected of having committed a criminal offence.
Much has been heard about Lord Jellicoe's propsals, but Lord Shackleton suggested that this power in the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be repealed, saying that it had
an unpleasant ring about it in terms of civil liberties.
In practice, the relevant section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been used, as this provision in the Bill

will doubtless be used, as a sweep-up provision when there is insufficient evidence to charge terrorist suspects with substantive offences.
As to exclusion orders, we criticise other countries for using internal exile, but that is precisely what this provision means. The person about to be excluded has no right even to know that he is under suspicion; he has no right to know the evidence against him; he has no right to cross-examine any evidence that has been put forward; he has no right to a trial or a public hearing; he has no right to know, when representations have been made, on what grounds those representations are considered or rejected; and he has no right of appeal to a court.
The provision which proposes an interview is no more than a charade. It does not change the basic injustice of the way in which internal exile will operate. Even if the Government believe that those who are the subject of such orders are genuinely involved in terrorism but cannot be charged, what business have the Government to exclude suspected terrorists to Northern Ireland or vice versa?
For those reasons, the Opposition will vote against the Bill.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I congratulate, in his absence, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on his maiden speech. He spoke well and in a forthright manner on this matter.
I have listened to the debate and especially to the two most recent speeches, those from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has the greatest experience of the impact of terrorism on the community. About a year or 18 months ago, I spoke in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and witnessed at first hand some of the relatives of those who had suffered at the hands of terrorists. I accept, of course, that when debating terrorism and the response to it, it is a question of balancing rights and liberties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) wisely said. Northern Ireland has suffered tremendously in recent years. If the loss of constituents in Northern Ireland was occurring in constituencies in England, be it in the constituency of the hon. Member for Peckham or in mine, the outcry would be incredible. If as many murders and terrorist activities were taking place in England, we would be under far greater pressure than we are just because the terrorist activities affect only the 17 Northern Ireland constituencies.
When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) introduced the Opposition's argument, he was not very convincing when he tried to explain the difference between his present attitude and his attitude when in Government in 1974–79. I do not believe that this legislation breaks new ground of principle in terms of the balance between the people's rights and liberties as compared to those in 1974. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "draconian" for what was done in 1974. However, in 1975 and 1976 and during the ensuing years, when he held ministerial office, he supported the legislation which he now decries, and legislation which does not have the number of safeguards, as a result of the Jellicoe report, as has the legislation before us. During that time, he supported legislation more stringent than that which we are now considering. When


he speaks of antagonising and alienating law-abiding British citizens, I wonder what the impact of his words will be on people in Northern Ireland who have personally been affected by the terrorism that they have endured year in and year out for the past 10 or 15 years.

Mr. Flannery: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is a democrat. Is it not possible that he was carrying out a decision by a wide group and that he had opinions of his own—which he had? The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) is not in order. He should inquire more deeply.

Mr. Proctor: I thought that the Labour Government acted according to collective Cabinet responsibility. If the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook honestly thought as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) describes, he should have done the decent thing and resigned when the reaffirmation of the powers came up for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman did not do that in any of the years that the matter came up. I do not recall that he was strident when in Opposition. Perhaps that was because Mr. Wedgwood Benn cajoled a sizeable section of the Labour Opposition into changing its opinion and that, in the absence of Mr. Benn, the policy has changed.

Ms. Clare Short: The discussion that is now taking place is wrong. It is suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not believe in what he said. He is not here to answer that allegation. It is disgraceful. My right hon. Friend should be given the opportunity to answer the accusation.

Mr. Proctor: I was in the Chamber when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was speaking so he should have the courtesy to be present when I am making my contribution.

Mr. Clive Soley: Right hon. and hon. Members have to leave the Chamber from time to time and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would respond if he were here. My right hon. Friend said clearly that his anxiety had been increased by the assumption that the legislation was still necessary. He said that we were learning from experience of the growing evidence that the Act was playing into the hands of the paramilitaries. If the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) does not address himself to that, his argument is irrelevant.

Mr. Proctor: I realise that right hon. and hon. Members must leave the Chamber, but that does not inhibit me from commenting upon a speech. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would be happy about that.
Of course we are talking about experience. In a democracy people can change their views. Obviously the Opposition Front Bench has changed its view. That is all that I am saying. Government Members do not agree with that change of view. It was not underlined or supported by Earl Jellicoe in his report. The reverse is true. I understand that difficulty is experienced by the official Opposition when a person examines a matter for nine months and comes to a view which is contrary to their view. Earl Jellicoe has looked closely at the experience of recent years; he has made his recommendations and the Government have acted upon them.
I support the Home Secretary in introducing the legislation. I am sure that in Committee hon. Members

will discuss the differences between the 1976 legislation and the new measures. We shall have to examine each change to see whether it weakens our attack upon terrorism. The Government will have to justify each change that they propose to ensure that the terrorist will not win. It is best for such a debate to take place in Committee.
One reason why I am keen to support the legislation is that it deals with terrorism not only in relation to Northern Ireland. The legislation is more sweeping in its outlook.
In paragraph 23 of his report Earl Jellicoe states:
The most notable trend in this area in Great Britain has been the increasing threat posed by international terrorism.
That is true. We have not escaped that threat. I believe that the 1980s and 1990s will be characterised by examples of terrorism across national frontiers. I believe that battles, not only in connection with the middle east, but with other parts of the world, will be fought on the streets of London and elsewhere. Therefore, I am delighted that the Government are addressing themselves to that problem.
Earl Jellicoe mentioned three incidents—the Iranian embassy siege of 1980, the appalling attempted murder of Mr. Argov, the Israeli ambassador, in June 1982, and the hijacking of a Tanzanian airliner to Stansted airport in February 1982. I represent an Essex constituency and I should like to place on record the great debt of gratitude that we all owe to the chief constable of Essex and to the Essex constabulary for the magnificent way in which they handled that hijacking episode. Of course we hope that there will be no further hijackings, but we cannot be sure. I assume that we plan in the expectation that such incidents will take place from time to time and that there will be similar threats.
If the Government intend that Stansted should be an "ideal" airport to handle such hijacking emergencies. I hope that they will deal kindly with the cost burden which falls upon the county of Essex. The Home Office has not said that that is the strategy, but if it is we should regard hijackings and the cost of dealing with them as a national responsibility instead of expecting Essex to pick up the bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) talked about clause 12(2)(b) and the legislation applying to international terrorism; to terrorist activity connected with Northern Ireland but not with domestic terrorist activity elsewhere. He gave the somewhat spurious example of someone from the Greater Manchester council visiting the Department of the Environment with a gun.
There is a severe and real danger for our capital city of London and our other large cities and urban conurbations in the potential for terrorists to exploit racial tension. Black and white alike will try to exploit the position.

Ms. Clare Short: I represent an inner city constituency with a large black population. Will the hon. Gentleman spell out exactly what his innuendo means? Why does he suggest that areas populated by black people are vulnerable to terrorism?

Mr. Proctor: My views on immigration are well known. The change in the population through immigration has created strains and stresses in our inner city areas. Both black and white alike have been exploited in the past——

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is exploiting the position.

Mr. Proctor: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. Black and white alike will be exploited in a way that has not happened before. There have been riots among black and white populations in the recent past, sometimes involving Molotov cocktails. Terrorism takes place in Northern Ireland daily, and it is not beyond the wit of man to follow the example set on the other side of St. George's channel. There are those who seek to destroy our society and our democratic institutions. They will use terrorist devices, such as the bomb and the bullet, in inner London and elsewhere.
I am pleased that the Government have spotted the problem and are concerned about it. The Home Secretary told my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that the Government would wait and consider further before extending the powers in the legislation to domestic terrorism. I believe that it is worth considering whether we should not include that power in the Bill now, rather than wait for terrorist activity to begin and then have to run back to the House to include it in the legislation. If we believe, as I think the Home Secretary believes, that there is a threat of domestic terrorism, it would be sensible to insert the appropriate measure to combat it in the Bill now rather than wait until it happens and then try to plug the gap.
The Government are right to legislate to stamp out international terrorism. What is the Government's view on those terrorist organisations that have their offices, and sometimes even their headquarters, in London? They indulge in terrorism around the world. Will the Government deal with those organizations——

Mr. Flannery: Are they in the synagogues?

Mr. Proctor: Whatever the nature of terrorist activity, the Government have a right to stamp it out. They must ensure that London does not become the headquarters for international terrorism in the rest of the world.
I support the Government's intention to reconsider the legislation in five years. The next five years will see increasing advances in terrorism and its means and abilities. As democratic politicians we must keep in step, if not ahead, of any terrorist developments. It is right that in five years the House should consider the matter again in the light of what has happened in the intervening period. The legislation may need to be changed or strengthened to put it in context with the nature of terrorism then operating.
I hope that the House will reject the Opposition amendment and give the Bill its full support.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) portrays a self-fulfilling prophesy. He believes that terrorism will grow during the next five years. There is little evidence to suggest that. Criminality might grow, but that must always be dealt with by criminal law. The hon. Gentleman made the point, which has some truth in it, that it is often necessary to secure a balance between rights and liberties and the need to protect society. It is where that balance is drawn, how it is drawn, and where we put the line that is important. What worries me about the Bill — and it worried me about the original Bill in 1976—is that we are seeking to negate some of our basic democratic rights.
There was a time when, if someone was incarcerated, there had to be more than simply a suspicion. A person had

to be brought before a court and a crime had to be proved. Now, as has been shown by the 5,000 people who have been "detained", one does not have to be guilty of an offence. The Home Secretary said earlier that such action might deter others. That is an appalling attack on our fundamental democracy. No one should be incarcerated in any form, for any time, unless he has committed an offence.
Conservative Members may disagree with me, but once we start down the road that it is in the interests of the state to detain, that will negate the whole of democratic liberty. The basis of our democratic liberty is the right to walk free. This Bill is wrong in the same way as the last Bill was wrong. In the passion of the moment following the Birmingham bombings, we sought to create a system to deal with temporary problems. Society was panicked and an Act of Parliament was passed that negated all our concepts that go back to the Magna Carta. That Bill has been sustained and nurtured year by year. In the interest of expediency, it was kept going a little longer and a little longer. What has happened? There is no evidence to suggest that it has in any way helped or hindered in the fight against terrorism.
Let it not be said that I in any way support terrorism. Anybody who commits any crime deserves to be punished. A terrorist is nothing more than a criminal. But we cannot beat ideas and dreams by legislation—we can do so only by showing that our ideas and dreams are best. The only way to solve the Irish problem is by understanding the thoughts and dreams of Irishmen. We must find a solution that fits those thoughts and dreams. I speak as a Dublin-born man, coming from a long blood line of Irishmen. We will not find a solution to the Irish problem in this legislation. What we give to one party becomes automatically something that the other side of the argument will always oppose. We cannot solve the problem of Northern Ireland by producing Bills such as the one we are debating.
The Bill deals not only with Northern Ireland but, as was said earlier, has a secondary side to it. Two organisations are proscribed in the Bill. There is nothing to stop the Minister increasing that number. Where would we start? What would we enlarge the legislation to cover? Who then would become the next terrorist?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. He may have overlooked clause 14(10) which appears to secure that there must be proceedings in this House if an order is to be made increasing the number of proscribed organisations. I see that the Minister confirms that. That is at any rate some comfort.

Mr. Bermingham: It is a minor comfort and I accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction. The Government of the day who, perforce, hold a majority can seek to use their majority to say that X is going to be proscribed in addition to what is already in the Bill and that will then become part of the system. I am worried that we are beginning to develop the concept of proscription and banning.
As I said earlier, ideas are defeated only by better ideas. They are not defeated by proscriptions.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has said twice that ideas can be defeated only by better ideas, but in a democratic society those ideas have to be translated into votes at the ballot box. The plain truth is that the IRA has not managed to translate its ideas


into votes at the ballot box—in fact, the IRA has been consistently rejected there and the IRA and Irish Republicanism have turned to violence.

Mr. Bermingham: Let it not be said that I am in any way arguing in favour of the IRA. I am trying not to limit my remarks purely to the IRA. The principles of the Bill go wider than the Irish question— far, far wider. An idea can be beaten by a better idea and that better idea can win at the ballot box.

Mr. Ross: What happens if the minority does not accept that?

Mr. Bermingham: We come back to the fundamental principles of democracy. The democracy of our society is that the majority view prevails. The minute one goes down the other track and says that an idea can be beaten by legislation, with proscription, with exlusion, with exile and containment, one begins to negate the principle of democracy. In the explanatory memorandum to the Bill we are told that clause 2
makes it an offence for a person to dress, or to display any article, in a public place in such a way as to suggest that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
Clause 2 shows how wide the dangersire becoming. It is an almost Orwellian concept—the thought police. We have started on that road. If one has a badge on one's lapel, for example, a tricolor, it could be thought that one was a supporter of Sinn Fein or an Irish, Fenian or republic-type organisation.

Mr. Flannery: Or a shamrock.

Mr. Bermingham: Or a shamrock, as my hon. Friend rightly says. The thought apparently gives rise to an offence—what the prosecutor thinks one was thinking. We have always had in this country the concept of criminal law that in order to commit an offence one has not only to think that one is committing an offence but that one has to do something. This Bill takes us on to the road where the very thought becomes the offence.
There will always be people who have ideas and who have thoughts, who may not agree with any particular group of people. We must never make it an offence for that thought to be an offence. If we are to have a free and democratic society people have a right to their views and opinions and to their liberty.
I shall vote against the Bill tonight. I shall vote for the Opposition's reasoned amendment. I shall do so with this thought in mind. If we have a society worth protecting and a society which claims to be democratic and free, we have a right to say what we want. I do not want to be a part of a society in which, for the sake of expediency, it is thought necessary to incarcerate without any good reason because we suspect and believe. I shall not support a Government who wish to bring such legislation before the House. Liberty is a precious thing. We have a duty to fight for and protect it on every occasion. It is being attacked by the Bill.

Rev. William McCrea: As a Member representing a constituency in a part of the United Kingdom where the powers available under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act are most needed, I rise to support the retention of these powers and I recommend them to the House as being vital. If hon. Members were to walk behind coffins as members and

representatives of the Loyalist community have had to do over the past 12, 13 and 14 years, the House would not need much convincing that such powers are essential. I believe that the Bill needs to be strengthened. I trust that in Committee every change proposed in the Bill will be closely scrutinised.
There has already been much talk in the debate about the balance between the liberty of the citizen and public safety. The best way to safeguard the United Kingdom community and to allow people to have their civil liberties is to crush terrorism and to allow peace and stability to return to this great kingdom. Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to eradicate terrorism? As long as it is not—I believe from the present policy on security that it is not—the citizens of the United Kingdom will be under a continual threat from terrorism, whether international, the IRA or the INLA.
Hon. Members have spoken about the length of time that the act has been on the statute book. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) would know a good deal about that from his associations over the past few years. He rode on the back of the CRA to get to his present position. The sooner terrorists are beaten, the sooner such Bills will not be needed. Let us take all-out steps to beat the terrorists.

Mr. John Hume: rose——

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Member for Foyle should remember that a person was murdered in Northern Ireland today. It was not one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It was not one of his ilk. It was not one of his people. He happened to be only another Loyalist, only another Protestant. It was a member of the SDLP, Councillor Sweeney, the chairman of Magherafelt district council, who, when Lord Mountbatten was murdered and when 19 British soldiers were blown to bits, laughed and said that he would shed no tears over them. When it was pointed out that many of the soldiers were Roman Catholics and his fellow Church members, that SDLP man said, "But they're not Irish." That is the truth of the situation.

Mr. Hume: There is absolutely no truth in what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Rev. William McCrea: I challenge the hon. Member for Foyle, because it is in the records of Magherafelt district council. It is in the books and on the record for ever. Indeed, that member of the hon. Gentleman's own party said that he was happy for his view to be recorded. Let not the leader wash his hands when things happen that do not suit him. The hands of his party members in my constituency are soiled by their links with terrorist organisations and by their sympathies for the IRA. Let the hon. Gentleman not come to the House and try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. The people of Ulster know exactly where his party stands.
The best way to remove the need for the Bill is to remove the terrorist and to destroy the terrorist threat and allow every decent citizen, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic or any other religion, to get on with living in peace and prosperity in our beloved Province.
But there are exceptional circumstances. Let us not close our eyes to that. Terrorists have a grip of violence on a community in a part of the United Kingdom. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that the. Bill


replaces an Act which was brought in after the Birmingham pub bombings when the House and country were in emotional turmoil. Because there are no bombs at the moment in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, he seemed to be saying "Let the rest of the United Kingdom go there. We are all right. We are not suffering. We do not need these measures." I remind the House that it is responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom and for dealing with terrorism, no matter in what part of the United Kingdom it may be taking place.
I have listened to Opposition Members talk about the rights of those who are brought in. Let me ask a question. What about the rights of Ulster's murdered? What about the rights of a man going to work with a lunch box under his arm—unlike many Republicans who lie in their beds and take every state benefit available? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is the truth. I challenge any hon. Member to prove that I am wrong.
What about the man on his way to work who is shot down like a dog? What about his wife? What about his children? What about the innocent people who suffer in the United Kingdom? There is no talk about their rights. We do not hear shouts about the rights of the innocent in Ulster. Not at all. But we hear a lot of talk about the rights of the terrorist—the person who perpetrates the acts against innocent people. If the United Kingdom and this Parliament have the sort of twisted mentality that leads them to put all their efforts into defending terrorists instead of defending those who are terrorised, the House has sunk low indeed. But I believe that the House will give a resounding vote in support of the Bill.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I say that there is a genuine desire to do away with the need for such a Bill. I do not want these measures remaining for ever as an Act of Parliament. But let us not close our eyes to reality. Let us not blinker or blind ourselves. People are being murdered and extraordinary measures are needed to deal with the terrorists in our midst.
I have been dismayed to witness the policy move by the Opposition Front Bench. Of course, there is a new leadership and I suppose that that is the best time to have a shift of policy. But the Opposition now say that they were wrong on the policy that they have supported in the House for years. They talk of draconian measures, but the only changes that have been made in the legislation have weakened the resolve to defeat terrorism instead of strengthening it. Therefore, I cannot understand, by any stretch of the imagination, why Labour Members seem so desirous of having the Bill removed.
Let me say a word to those who call for further safeguards or seek the scrapping of the original Act. After the Jellicoe report was published, certain safeguards were introduced. The report recommended that legislation of this nature should require periodic full re-enactment by Parliament in addition to annual renewal and that after a lifespan of five years a brand new Bill should be required. That would allow detailed amendments in the light of experience and changing circumstances after each full Parliament and should, therefore, allay genuine fears.
However, I must state clearly that the safeguards that I ask the House to be most concerned about are those for the ordinary citizen who has nothing to fear from the law, but a lot to fear from the terrorist. All the hon. Members from Northern Ireland who regard themselves as

constitutional politicians, including the hon. Member for Foyle, know full well that the IRA would shoot down like a dog any person in the Roman Catholic community who did not bow and scrape on the ground to its ideas and philosophies. The IRA would put down such people just as it would put down any Protestant. The IRA does not care who people are or what camp they come from. I say that we must safeguard every citizen in the United Kingdom.
I am not worried by the Opposition's policy movements. I am sorry that, as a new Member, I do not know the names of all Labour Members. No doubt there are some I would want to forget anyway, but the hon. Lady — I think her name is Ms. Short — is getting very excited. If she wants to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to her.

Ms. Clare Short: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. After the hon. Gentleman's enormous, amazing emotional outburst, will he let us know whether he is opposed to the use of force and terrorism from all sides in Northern Ireland? Is he opposed to the use of force by Unionist forces in Northern Ireland?

Rev. William McCrea: I make no apology to the House. Every democratically elected hon. Member must condemn terrorism, from whichever side it comes. I remind the House that there is a threat to the position of the United Kingdom and, in particular, the part that I was elected to represent. I shall certainly do all in my power to oppose the challenge to democracy in Ulster which is centred on the IRA and INLA.
The Bill is not a Democratic Unionist party measure. It names two organisations—the IRA and the INLA. I did not choose those names.

Mr. Allen Adams: May I introduce myself to the hon. Gentleman? My name is Adams and, would you believe, I am the hon. Member for Paisley, North. I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments on that.
You are talking at length about democracy. The basic question that the House wants answered is whether, in your opinion, Ireland is or is not a country. If Ireland is a country, what is the majority view on home rule in Ireland as a whole? If you do not accept Ireland as a whole as being a country, will you give an historical analysis of the situation to explain to us why Ireland is not a country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hate to intervene, because interventions tend to prevent other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate having the opportunity to do so. However, I want to remind the House that we do not refer to hon. Members by name. The hon. Lady just mentioned is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), and she should be referred to in that way. Similarly, other hon. Members should be referred to by their constituencies. What is more, hon. Members must not accuse the Chair of wanting to do this or that.

Mr. Adams: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Rev. William McCrea: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for telling me the hon. Lady's constituency.
I was delighted to hear the intervention of the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) and to learn that he comes from such a sensible constituency. However, I


am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has the mind of the House. He said that the House wanted to know the answer to his question. I am not sure that it does. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman asked the question on behalf of the House with the knowledge of the mind of the House. However, to reply to his question, I say merely that I and those who elected me are British. We are from British Ulster and we are proud of it. We have nothing to do with the Irish Republic or with any other foreign state. I am proud to be in the House equal to any other citizen who sits on these Benches and who comes from this part of our homeland.

Mr. Sean Hughes: On several occasions the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has said that he feels himself to be British. That being so, is it right to support a Bill which provides that one part of Britain can have people excluded from it? Does he support the idea that my constituents on Merseyside can be restricted to Merseyside, the Scots to Scotland or the Welsh to Wales?

Rev. William McCrea: I am delighted to respond to that intervention, because in my concluding remarks I want to address myself to an anomaly in the Bill.
Many people in Northern Ireland are totally dissatisfied with some of the Bill's provisions. I have in mind especially the one relating to exclusion orders. The effect of the exclusion order is to make Northern Ireland a dumping ground for terrorists. So far, more than 200 people whom the Home Secretary considers to be associated with, or about to be associated with, terrorists have been exported from one part of the United Kingdom to another part — Northern Ireland. If these excluded persons are considered to be a danger to the population on the mainland, how can the Government justify sending them back to Northern Ireland? Presumably it does not matter if they perpetrate violence in Northern Ireland. Are we second-class citizens who do not deserve protection from potential terrorists?
The majority of the population of Northern Ireland are concerned about that provision in the Bill. If it is argued that there is nowhere else to send them, I suggest that they might be sent to the haven which they profess to love so dearly. Many of them hold and carry Irish passports. Why not send them back to the poverty-stricken country which they are trying to get the rest of us to join? I shall be happy to see them go, and I hope that many of them would contribute to their fares back to that foreign state. This provision ought not to be in the Bill. I trust that when it comes to be examined in Committee proper changes will be made to it.
No terrorist should be allowed to sleep easily in his bed at night. The state should be a scourge to these evil people. The Bill hardly allows that, but at least it is a start. For that reason, I ask the House to support it.

Ms. Clare Short: I rise, not to speak for long, but to share with the House some information that I have about the origins of the Bill because it is important to take them into account before deciding finally to support the Bill.
I was working in the Home Office at the time the original Bill was drafted and presented to the House. As we have been reminded, it came rapidly after the bombings in a pub in the centre of Birmingham.
Late that night I was sitting in the Ministerial. Box listening to the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Next to me was the man who drafted the Bill. Repeatedly I turned to him to ask in what way the different provisions would have prevented the Birmingham bombings. Eventually he replied, "You know very well that is not what it is about. We have to appease them. They are after capital punishment. They have to be given something." That was the mood of the House that night, and it was the reason why the Act was passed.
Now we have the legislation, and we see the House at its worst, capable of justifying any provision by constant use of the word "terrorism". The House is meant to be the Mother of Parliaments, the defender of democracy and the upholder of civil liberties and the rule of law throughout the world. But we hear it use the word "terrorism" to excuse the undermining of any principle of the rule of law. It is used to excuse a system of internal exile and to create our own little Siberia which, a few years ago, we would have thought an intolerable concept within any notion of a country which enjoyed the rule of law. We have a system of detention where people can be held for up to seven days without being told of any charge, without necessarily being charged and without any right to call in a legal representative to defend them.
The Bill had its origins in that mood. It was not passed with the thought that any real act of terrorism could be prevented. It was a bundle of provisions to appease a mood of fear and anger. I well understand the mood, but it is not good enough as the basis for legislation. It is not good enough to undermine the civil liberties of all the people of the United Kingdom.
The powers repeated in the Bill are seen as a threat to the Irish community throughout Great Britain. I refer to Irish people who have no connection with any political activities. They fear these provisions because they undermine their liberties and our own, too.
The Bill is a threat to us all, and we see that now in that our notion of what is a civil liberty and what are reasonable legal provisions is being eroded. We see that in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament and is about to be reintroduced. We see similar erosions of civil liberties. We see the rule of law eroded. That, too, questions how long it is right to detain people without charge.
Many of tonight's speeches have tried to justify an even further erosion of our liberties, but they have not sought to justify the specific powers in the Bill. Hon. Members simply repeat that terrorism is wrong and that measures must be taken against it. They do not explain why these provisions creating these breaches of the rule of law can be justified.
I am privileged to know that this legislation was introduced originally for the wrong reasons. The desire was to appease the fear that the House would demand the restoration of capital punishment to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. These powers were never justified in themselves.
The evidence since the introduction of this legislation shows that it is nonsense. If we look at how the powers have been used, we see no justification for them because they have not been a great aid in preventing terrorism. One cannot pretend that that is so. That is simply false. Any decent democrat—anyone who cares for liberty in this country—should look at the evidence and think again,


and have enough dignity and honour to change his mind. There is nothing wrong in changing one's mind. My party is proud to be capable of doing so.

Mr. Robert Key: I understand that in the first half of 1983, 83 people were detained under the Act, 11 were held for more than 48 hours with the permission of the Home Secretary, three were the subjects of exclusion orders and six charged with an offence under the Act. Sixty-seven of the 83 people detained were released.
In every year except one since the original Bill became law, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of detainees. The number has declined from a peak of 1,067 in 1975. Despite what the previous speaker said, the Act has been working. There is, however, never a time for complacency. The problem has an international dimension which affects our debate today. We face also the problem of the growing trend towards violence in the Western democracies, and the problem of trying to define terrorism. I agree with the previous speaker that to stand up and chant "terrorism" does little to solve the problem. Equally, I feel strongly that when the House intends to restrict the activity of even a single individual — especially when there is to be a restriction of freedom of movement, and detention outside the normal time limit — we need to consider the matter with the utmost gravity, calmness and clarity.
We have to balance the safety of the public against the rights of the individual. We are talking only about a very small number of very dangerous people, supported in this country by a small number of fanatics and overseas by those who, if they were better informed, would not support terrorism in our islands. The vast majority of people are wholly out of sympathy with terrorism of any kind, at any time and in any place.
The breadwinners of many families in my constituency are members of the Services. The husbands are often serving in Northern Ireland, and the strain engendered by their daily exposure to terrorism has an appalling effect on family life. It is our duty to make sure that the families at home are not equally exposed. We should do everything we can to restrict terrorism. Internationally, our servicemen are increasingly subject to terrorism in carrying out their peacekeeping tasks. We owe it to them and their families not to lose any resolve tonight and not to change our minds.
There is another group of people in my constituency who are dedicated to the protection and saving of human life. The work of those people has saved hundreds of lives in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I refer to the Defence Establishment at Porton Down. Those who work there are bound to official secrecy, but no one would be happier than they to see an end to terrorism and conflict. They often work under a cloud of suspicion, and often have to cope with misplaced hysteria; but every terrorist bullet or bomb that kills or maims, or seeks to kill or maim, makes the work of that establishment more important. I speak not from prejudice or hysteria but from experience, having recently visited the establishment and seen the expertise, dedication and high standards which are upheld by all those scientists, doctors and vets. We would be letting them down as well if we failed to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I have mentioned the international dimension. In January 1977 the United Kingdom signed the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. In our name, Anthony Crosland agreed to disregard the political nature of terrorist crimes for the purposes of extradition. The rights of those accused or convicted of terrorism are not the only human rights. The victims or potential victims of acts of terrorism and of all forms of crime also have rights. I am very disappointed by the failure of the Government of the Irish Republic to sign the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, but we in this country can hold our heads high because of our efforts to combat international terrorism. Terrorists know that they are not safe here, and we must keep it that way.
The problem is often the definition of terrorism. The trend to resort to violent acts when the views of minorities do not win through in the democratic process is something to which we shall have to address ourselves much more closely in the future. The Institute for the Study of Conflict recently pointed out in a report that the incidence of violence attributable to political motives represents only a small fraction of the total. Today the Home Secretary has accepted the possibility of the need to proscribe other domestic groups. The institute concluded that the potential for terrorism is considerable and remains a challenge to the Western democracies.
When does civil disobedience become terrorism? The institute has suggested a scale with bombing, hijacking and kidnapping at one end and, at the other end, the occupation of public buildings, protest marches and demonstrations where violence appears only on the fringes, as in France and West Germany. Half way along the scale might appear all acts of mass law-breaking such as the illegal Stonehenge festival and the so-called peace convoy which has progressed from Glastonbury through Stonehenge, Greenham Common and Norwich and is now, by anarchic and antisocial behaviour outside Salisbury, causing considerable distress in my constituency.
It is important that we set down markers about what we believe to be the right balance. We need to draw a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of demonstration and disagreement in a democracy, and to persuade minorities to use votes rather than bullets. The right to protest must be maintained, but I am increasingly worried by interference from single-issue minority pressure groups in the human rights of the majority. Therefore, it is even more important to draw a very firm line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. That is our duty in this debate, and that is why we must not weaken our resolve or change our minds tonight.

Mr. Martin Flannery: About a quarter of an hour ago we heard the authentic voice of moderation from Mid-Ulster. It reminded me of the reason for the red lines on the Floor of the Chamber. We all have a place in the cloakroom for keeping our swords. There are little pink ribbons there. There was a time when people came armed to the House of Commons. Thank God the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrae) had no weapons at his disposal tonight. We would have been in a parlous position if his impassioned moderation——

Rev. William McCrae: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman realises it.

Mr. Flannery: —had left him with a spear or some other such ancient weapon in his hand
I welcome the length of this debate. Over the years, I have taken part in all the debates on this subject. They lasted for about an hour and a half and were held late at night. In former days there was a bipartisan policy. At that time the Labour party was so backward that it did not realise how deadly the legislation was. It now realises how deadly this Bill is. Many of us struggled against the previous Bills. Literally only a handfull of us used to vote against this illiberal measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has mentioned, the legislation stemmed from the panic following the bombs in Birmingham.
Some Conservatives Members and Members of Parliament for Ulster talk as though bombs do not go off in places such as McGurk's bar, and as though a group of masked men did not stop people going to work, or put up barricades against those workers so that they themselves could dominate the struggle to share power. I welcome the fact that we have several hours of debate, because we need time to discuss the most intractable political problem that we face. Some people say that we should crush the terrorists and that that would solve the problem. However, I should like to remind the House of why we are in this mess and how it all began.
The voice that we heard from the other side of the House was the authentic voice of those who caused the trouble long ago. The minority community in Northern Ireland — the original Irish — was suppressed by the Scottish planters. The English, who had trouble with the Scots, were astute enough to use the Scots against the Irish, because they also had trouble with the Irish. Indeed, I saw the English do the same thing in India. Very similar Acts were introduced to hold down the Indian people. Ultimately, however, there was a withdrawal.
I notice that the 1974 Act and the subsequent Acts were temporary provisions. That qualification is now being removed. Apparently, the reason is that this Bill is wider than the previous legislation. We have been told by one of those on the Conservative side of the House that there could be trouble. If that hon. Gentleman had managed to get through his speech without saying something about immigrants I, for one, would have expected Big Ben to strike 13. One expects a certain sort of speech from that source.
The legislation remains draconian. Some people are almost ready to polish their jackboots. However, we in the Labour Party have taken a great leap forward. Once only 12 or 15 of us opposed it, but now the Labour Party believes again in a united Ireland. It will vote against this draconian measure. We believe that ordinary criminal law is quite sufficient to deal with the terrible problems. Most of us face problems in a reasonable manner. Most people are against any form of terrorism, whatever its source. However, some voices, which are raised so fiercely and in a passionate and headstrong manner, fuel the terrorists.
Some people approach this terrible problem in a sectarian manner, thus showing that they have learnt nothing from the dreadful struggle that has led to the renewal of this legislation. A few hon. Members attended the previous renewal debates, and a few attend now. Most people want to speak. The problem is larger now. More people realise that this legislation will nit do the slightest good after it has been passed tonight. There will still be

politics, the trouble will still occur and we shall still be talking, as we have done this afternoon, of people being put into the Maze prison and trying to escape.
Our problems need political solutions that demand a subtlety and an intensity of thought, not voices that fuel the flames and cause even deeper trouble when they are published in the newspapers. The Labour Party believes that we are discussing this problem in a more rational and broader manner.
Exclusion orders are draconian, terrible and unjust in every way. The authentic voice of moderation, which we heard earlier, used an expression to which I draw attention. That voice said that Ulster was becoming a jumping ground for terrorists. That apparently simple statement assumes that anybody who is excluded is a terrorist when there has been no trial of any kind. This will intensify our problems and reveal the sectarianism that caused them. Democracy will solve our problems. If one side extends democracy to the other—this has not occurred so far— we shall be well on the way towards solving our problems.
It is appalling that it is assumed that everybody who is excluded is a de facto terrorist when there has been no judge or jury. The Government assume such people are terrorists. This legislation inevitably produced the nightmare of the "supergrasses". It was as inevitable as night following day that the frustration felt through not solving the problem politically would result in a violation of natural and legal justice in Northern Ireland. The legislation will seem to produce quiescence for a short time but it will inevitably bring the terrorists more into play, especially those on the minority side. They will say that this is an example of British justice wherein one man who is a confessed murderer can go before a court and put other men on trial. This will intensify the problem.
This Bill will contribute towards the failure to solve political problems and the Government will then have recourse to so-called solutions which will not do anything. The mentality that produced this Bill is the same as that which produced the "supergrasses" and violated natural and legal justice.
Successive Governments have grossly underestimated the political problem that we face. However, we are now beginning to come to grips with it. I invite Conservative Members to consider the issue more profoundly and in a less sectarian way.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: No, not after what we heard from the hon. Gentlemam earlier. Besides, other hon. Members wish to speak.

Rev. William McCrea: That is the hon. Gentleman's democracy.

Mr. Flannery: To the extent that we underestimate the problem, we shall renew Acts of Parliament such as this year after year. The melancholy renewal will go on 10 or 20 years from now because of our failure to solve the political problem that confronts us.
As I have said many times before, terrorist leaders are not just thugs and gangsters. Some of them are, but many are political animals who are deeply convinced that they are fighting for a cause. It is far more difficult to defeat someone who believes that he is fighting for a just cause. In so far as we insist on their being thugs and gangsters


and fail to analyse the politics of the conflict, we shall fail to solve the problem. A solution would be easier if terrorist leaders were all thugs and gangsters. We could then crush them easily, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster wishes. However, the solution is more complex, subtle and lies more deeply than that. The problem is political and it requires a political solution.
The Bill is so illiberal that it deepens the problem. Increasing numbers of people now recognise that. That recognition will be shown in the Division Lobby tonight. We shall vote against this Bill in greater numbers than ever before.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My speech will be mainly practical and technical. I do not aspire to the emotional heights of either my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) or the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
I congratulate Lord Jellicoe on his report. It is excellent. I have studied it carefully. I have corresponded with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about some of the recommendations. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) I shall quote one of Lord Jellicoe's conclusions with regard to the Bill, based on his studies and interviews. At paragraph 56 he said that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976
has led to the charging and subsequent conviction of a large number of people guilty of very serious criminal offences connected with terrorism, which in many cases would not and could not have resulted from arrests under other powers.
Lord Jellicoe's conclusion is not to be lightly dismissed. The Act has helped in the conviction of terrorists.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has arrived at a felicitous moment, and thank him warmly for the care and attention that he has given to some of the points that I have put to the Home Office on behalf of the Police Federation. I am grateful to him. In general, it is satisfied with his conclusions.
In the 20 years during which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have made something of a study of terrorism. I am in no sense an expert and I would always bow to the superior knowledge of Ministers— it is based on the much greater information that is available to them. But I have reached two conclusions which I should like to share with my right hon. and learned Friend. The first is baleful. There is likely to be more rather than less terrorism both in the world as a whole, and in Great Britain. Sadly, many more innocent people will be killed by terrorists. Many of our leaders will risk assassination. I say this because of the advance of technology. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the man who shot him had to stand on a building about 200 yards from him to draw a direct line of sight. Today, such an assassination can easily take place with one of the precision-guided missiles, with which the world is littered and which frequently are stolen from the armies of the East or the West. It is technically possible for such an assassination to be carried out at a great distance and with far less risk to the terrorist.
Similarly, we now have fiendish devices which make it possible to plant a bomb three or six months in advance of its detonation by remote control. Right hon. and hon.

Members should visualise the possibility of such a device being planted, for example, at the Cenotaph between three and six months before 11 November, a device capable of detonation at a long distance but almost impossible to detect. In short, terrorism is a scourge which I fear will get worse.
My second conclusion is this. If a state, its Parliament and Government do not provide protection for ordinary people, they will take the law into their own hands to provide that protection for themselves. That is precisely the pattern of events in Northern Ireland. Unchecked terrorism breeds counter terrorism. Therefore, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, our duty is to strike the balance between maintaining public safety on the one hand and preserving individual rights and freedoms on the other — between providing the law-abiding majority with the security to which they are entitled, and avoiding the trap of overreaction or repression, which may serve the terrorist's ends by undermining democratic values which Governments, in free societies, exist to uphold. That is the dilemma facing the Government and the police.
The police are well aware that people in free societies are so sensitive to charges of repression that they, the police and security services, must not be seen to overreact. Yet their first duty and most important social service is to protect the citizens from threats to their lives and safety. I use this definition of the balance we must strike on good advice. My words are the words just used by Sir Kenneth Newman when he explained to the European Atlantic group the balance that he seeks to strike when maintaining the liberties and freedoms of London in the face of terrorist attack.
I shall skate over most of the Bill quickly because much of it is a replay of the previous Act. I welcome the broad changes that the Home Secretary made, and I am sure that he is right to consider past Acts against international terrorists, and not solely terrorists from Northern Ireland who might threaten our society. The quarrels of Greek and Turk, and of Arab and Jew can explode in the streets of London. The time has come when no Government who care for the peace of their people can fail to have the power to exclude those who would take terrorist actions against those people. I also welcome the other changes in the Bill.
Alongside the legislation that my right hon. and learned Friend rightly seeks, the prevention of terrorism requires several administrative actions. The first of those relates to intelligence about terrorist organisations. If terrorism is to be contained, we must be able more effectively to collect, collate, analyse and make use of advance information in depth about the nature of terrorist agencies, their ideological background, their leadership and its motivation, their finances, communications, weapons and internal disciplinary arrangements. Above all, we need to know more—much more than we do at present—about their international ramifications.
I emphasise the latter point because there can no longer be any doubt that terrorists in one country assist terrorists in other countries. Weapons stolen from a Swiss army depot have turned up in the hands of terrorists as diverse as the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof gang and certain factions of the PLO. PLO training camps in Yemen have been used to familiarise European terrorists with automatic weapons and land mines, and there is circumstantial evidence—I put it no higher than that—that the IRA has


benefited from connections with other terrorist organisations in Europe and perhaps in north Africa. Nor can the possibility be excluded—I choose my words carefully— that Soviet and some East European stare security services from time to time may have used terrorist organisations in other countries to assist them in their efforts to damage Western interests.
I should also mention the existence of the paid professional assassin—the Jackal, to use a name from contemporary fiction. Such men are available for terrorist hire. They may be few or many — I have no way of knowing—but they can and do operate internationally. They are by no means confined to one cause with one set of targets. Provided that the money is right and the risks are not too great, the Jackal will go anywhere.
I mention the international dimension solely to emphasise my point about the need for better intelligence and more advance information and background about every terrorist agency that might be used to attack us. It is easy to say, but exceedingly difficult — perhaps impossible—to achieve this in real life; but we must do better. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend will take the time—he does not have much—to assure himself, and therefore the House, that our intelligence agencies are well enough staffed and resourced to gather all the terrorist intelligence that is available. I hope that they are not so over-concentrated on the Soviet threat—although I do not minimise it—as to be unable to devote sufficient time and effort to the non-Soviet terrorist threat outside as well as inside Northern Ireland. I also ask my right hon. and learned Friend to satisfy himself that our British system of collating and analysing the copious data that is obtained about terrorism is the best available. Do we apply the most effective methods of operational research? Do we have the most efficient technology, such as computers, to assess intelligence material and to relate it to the practicalities of the threat that we face?
Is my right hon. Friend content with the state of international intelligence sharing about terrorism? I am aware of the arrangements that have been worked out with European Governments, and I have had some experience of the collaboration between the Americans and ourselves that has assisted greatly in tackling some aspects of the IRA in recent years. However, with the technical facilities of international communication improving so dramatically, the Government need to be confident that we are getting, as well as giving, all the relevant data that bear on terrorist threats. How does my right hon. Friend judge the quality of international intelligence sharing?
The second area of administrative action that I hope my right hon. Friend will bring forward as a counterpart to this necessary legislation is action to make it harder for terrorists and criminals of all kinds to get hold of weapons. The other day, not half a mile from this House and only about 200 yards from Buckingham Palace, armed police officers from the anti-terrorist squad arrested a man with a large supply of guns and ammunition in Belgravia. The guns included two Smith and Wesson revolvers, a magnum gun, a magnum colt, three magazines, a Churchill rifle and 300 rounds of ammunition. The man had no firearms certificate. He was able to persuade the court, and, I think, the police, that he had made a mistake. He intended this arsenal to be transferred to one of his friends overseas, and was able to persuade the court that he was

about to apply for a firearms export certificate".
I accept that. That was the view of the court, and as my right hon. Friend knows, I always accept the verdicts of British juries.
I merely refer to that case because there has been a rapid increase in the number of weapons available in this country to those who would use them for no good purpose. Sadly, the world is littered with surplus firearms from the NATO and Warsaw Pact armies. The world is also stuffed with surplus ammunition which can be bought on any black market. I understand the heavy task in front of my right hon. Friend, but through the Minister of State I hope that he will assure us that he will satisfy himself, as a new Home Secretary, that the arrangements made for the custody of weapons by the British Armed Forces and police are up to date and burglar proof.
I end with a cautionary tale. The other day, as we all know so well, some fanatic terrorist in Beirut drove an army lorry full of explosives to the place where the American marines were sleeping and another drove a similar lorry to the place where the French were sleeping. The result was close to 200 dead. My fear is that terrorists are imitative. I do not believe that is is likely for such an incident to have taken place in Northern Ireland, because such is now the experience of the RUC and the British Army that the preparedness of their barracks would make it virtually impossible for any such driver to do so. Nonetheless, many of our depots in Great Britain could be vulnerable. I ask my hon. Friend to satisfy himself that such a thing could not happen here.

Mr. Tony Baldry: We would do well to remind ourselves that this is a Bill devoted to the prevention of terrorism. Terrorism is no more nor less than seeking to achieve political ends by the use of violence.
A number of Labour Members have referred to political ideas. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to dreams. No one is opposed to dreams or political ideas — the opposition is towards using violence to achieve those ends. Unless Parliament prevents the use of violence to achieve political ends, the whole fabric of democracy is at risk.
During the debate we have heard a number of clearly absurd assumptions about the Bill from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) suggested that the Bill challenged the right of silence. If she were to look at paragraph 217 on page 84 of Lord Jellicoe's report she would see that a case is reported there, from the High Court in Scotland, which shows that there is no intention that an individual should be forced to incriminate himself as a consequence of the Bill. The right of silence for an individual is still sacrosanct.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to the arbitrary arrest of innocent individuals. However, there is nothing arbitrary about the powers of arrest under clause 12. There have to be reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has taken place. If there are no reasonable grounds for that suspicion, the prerogative of habeas corpus will lie.
We have also heard criticism of the exclusion order, about which Lord Jellicoe says that
its value is difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way.
He goes on to make a conclusion that is worth remembering. He says:


I conclude, in effect, that the exclusion of some people under these powers has materially contributed to public safety in the United Kingdom and that this could not have been achieved through the normal criminal process.
Labour Members would do well to dwell on the fact that, although these powers may be exceptional, they are not as draconian as they would have us believe. I have listened to all of the debate and I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why the Opposition have supported the Prevention of Terrorism Act, but have suddenly changed their minds over the Bill.
Lord Jellicoe rightly says that exceptional powers require exceptional safeguards. The difficulty is that most of the exceptional powers are in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 and most of the exceptional safeguards require administrative or other action. In paragraph 9 Lord Jellicoe suggests that
The police throughout the United Kingdom should be reminded by the appropriate Secretary of State that the power of arrest under section 12 should be exercised only where the use of no other power is appropriate to the end sought.
There are further references in paragraphs 17 and 18 to the Home Office draft code relating to the treatment of prisoners in police custody, and there are references in paragraph 19 to the RUC code.
There is also that long and somewhat complex provision, which will have to be contained within the statutory instrument, about the hours and times of detaining individuals. Will the Home Secretary make available in the Library something on Lord Jellicoe's conclusions about the administrative action and on whether the Government intend to carry them out, and in what way if they do so? Otherwise, the House has no real opportunity to scrutinise the exceptional safeguards that Jellicoe has put into his report, most of which rely on administrative action rather than statutory provision.
The Bill must be supported by the whole House.

Mr. Clive Soley: The central theme of speeches from the Opposition Benches has been that the problem is a lack of evidence that the Bill is necessary and that it is a major invasion and infringement of our civil liberties. That has been our central theme.
It has been my fear for many years that we tend to respond to essentially political problems by attempting to clamp down on civil liberties in the hope that by dealing with the symptoms of political problems somehow the political problems will resolve themselves. The evidence for that is not good. It is not sufficient, as the Home Secretary and a number of Conservative Members have tried to do at times, simply to blame previous Administrations and ask, "Why have you changed your mind?" There are many arguments against that, not least that if we did not change our mind on the basis of the evidence before us that has been growing year by year and progressively becoming more powerful—I shall come to this matter in greater detail later—we should be guilty of betraying the purposes of this House.
I should also like to remind the Home Secretary and other Conservative Members that we have never yet had a study into whether the Act is effective. I know, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) knows, that Lord Jellicoe formed the opinion that it was necessary and effective.

However, that is not a detailed inquiry. That is not evidence for and against. I shall address some of my remarks to the matter tonight. So let us hear no more of this nonsense that it is not appropriate to have a different view of the matter over the years.
Overall, the effect of the erosion of civil liberties in this country is frightening. I remember the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974, and I understand why people both here and outside not only wanted legislation of this nature but wanted to go further. The feelings were deep and angry, and understandably so. However, the job of this House is to protect civil liberties.
My overriding concern for many years—it has been expressed by many people — is that democracies throughout history are rarely destroyed overnight. It is a slow but steady erosion of civil liberties and civil rights, to which people have become accustomed over the years. Each erosion seems reasonable. Some dramatic act has taken place, like the Birmingham pub bombings, and it has seemed reasonable to take action, but at the end of the day people realise that the liberties to which they have been used over many years are not there to defend one. Then it requires only a major crisis. When societies drift into major crises they are often about economics or war, and the economics can be about mass unemployment or high inflation. Those are the times when societies get into trouble. It is then, more than at any other time, that people need the protection of civil rights that have been built up over the years. If those rights are no longer there to defend the people it is no good if hon. Members or anyone else complain when the man of iron takes over. That is how it happens in history, and let no one believe that democracy is safe unless people are alert to that danger. It is the duty of every person in this House, of whichever party, to be alert to that danger, and one of my criticisms of many of the speeches that we have heard tonight from the Conservative Benches is that there has not been significant evidence that they are alert to that danger.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not the hon. Gentleman also agree that the iron men, as he puts it, have more frequently come to power on the back of the breakdown of law and order, of terrorism unchecked, and that that, more than anything else, has been the source of dictatorship?

Mr. Soley: What the hon. Gentleman should look at, and look at in more depth—I shall comment on some of his remarks in a moment, if I have time—is the action that leads up to that period, before the breakdown in law and order. I shall come to that in a moment. If one does not examine that aspect, it becomes too late to take the action that is needed.
The Tory party is historically weak in protecting civil liberties. It has always been a reluctant and resentful convert — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — to democratic procedures. Throughout history it has rejected many extensions of the franchise, and it has resented and tried to repel other civil liberties that we in this country have fought for. The Tory party prefers what I shall describe as benign authoritarianism — and sometimes it is not so benign. We witness that from time to time in the stage-managed conferences with the deferential political eunuchs engaging in standing ovations to order.
When Lord Jellicoe says that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should stay, he gives four reasons. He said,


first, that it must be effective; secondly, that the aims cannot be achieved by a general law; thirdly, that it must not be unacceptable to civil liberties; and, fourthly, that there must be safeguards against abuse. I am worried, as Conservative Members rarely address themselves to those matters.
The right hon. Member for Spelthome (Sir H. Atkins), who has special knowledge of Northern Ireland, is anxious that the word "political" should be dropped from the definition of terrorism. Of course, it could be dropped, but the giveaway is in the Act because ministerial and not judicial power determines whether a person is detained or excluded. Whether abroad or in this country it is a political act if the person charged can say that he was detained on the direct instructions of the Secretary of State with no judicial involvement whatever. Simply removing one word from the Bill cannot remove the political nature of the act.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: I was referring to the case of a man against whom a warrant exists for his arrest for committing murder. I suppose that that offence can be said to be political, but I do not think that it is. I object to his being able to go to the courts in his own country and say that his motive was political and therefore the crime was different.

Mr. Soley: That is precisely my point. One can say exactly the same on the basis of the Bill regardless of whether the word "political" appears because the detentions and exclusions will be on ministerial and not judicial decisions. In other words, we know that the act is political and we must face up to its implications in terms of our civil liberties and law.
I am not surprised that the Liberal party supported the Bill. However, I am a little worried that Liberal Members did not stay to see the argument through. They told us that they would light the Bill clause by clause and then said that they would support it. That is a curious position.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made a very encouraging maiden speech and I congratulate him on it. Most of us were sitting of the edges of our seats. At one time I thought that not only was he making a maiden speech but that he would criticise his own Government on the Bill. He correctly pointed out that this was an erosion of habeas corpus, a matter dear to his heart. He is quite right to say that and I respect him for it. I hope that in time we shall encourage him to firm up on that belief and take his convictions into the Lobby with us. If he needs any advice on that subject I shall gladly help him. I also congratulate him on the brevity of his speech, which was impressive.
I have referred to the erosion of civil liberties. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) gave the best example. He said that we should return to selective internment. That is the problem. There are umpteen arguments that can be put forward to prevent terrorism and the erosion of civil liberties.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In my opinion, there would have been less erosion in doing that than in resorting to exclusion.

Mr. Soley: I believe that in the end we would have internment and a Prevention of Terrorism Act as well. The argument is always that we must have more and more power to defeat terrorism because we have failed to face the political arguments that underlie it.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the provision is turning Northern Ireland into a dustbin for terrorists. The feeling in Northern Ireland about this matter is immensely strong. Not only has the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights rightly condemned this, but many other people do not see why it is all right for terrorists to walk the streets of Belfast but not all right for them to do so in Britain. Misunderstandings occur as to whether we have indentified terrorists, but, having been labelled as such by the exclusion orders, they are seen in that light by the people of Northern Ireland.
In the light of the Government's policy on Northern Ireland, it is significant that they are still prepared to treat Northern Ireland in a different manner from the rest of the United Kingdom — and not only in this respect. The Government go further by introducing embarkation cards for the island of Ireland.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) brought in the racial factor by innuendo. He will know my views about racialism. He forgot to mention that one of the main triggers in the inner city riots to which he referred was the method and style of policing. If we do not carry the people with us in policing methods, we shall lose their support. At best we shall experience civil disorder of the type that he described and at worst paramilitary grouping of the type experienced in Northern Ireland. We must take the people with us if we want to defeat terrorism.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made an impassioned speech. Although we all respect the problems that face hon. Members from Northern Ireland, they do not have a monopoly of concern about what happens there. I have been involved in Northern Ireland matters in the House since 1980. Part of my reason was that concern. The hon. Gentleman's care and concern would be more convincing if he had been able to condemn paramilitary activity from both sides without prompting from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Recognition of what is happening on both sides of the sectarian divide is necessary.
I have talked about the slow erosion of civil liberties. I am talking not only of the prevention of terrorism measures and the emergency provisions, but of the increased powers of the police and immigration officers. We must not forget that the legislation applies to immigration officers. I am talking about searches in the Houses of Parliament and the extension of the powers of security guards, which seem reasonable in their own right, but they undermine our civil liberties. I understand how they came about in the 1960s and 1970s, but unless we take a long-term view of what is happening, we shall end up without any of the civil liberties that we have been used to and for which we have fought so hard.
Both Shackleton and Jellicoe say that they recognise the dangers to civil liberties but believe that terrorism makes that necessary. We must ask the central question. Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that the Act has been successful? It is not in the statistics. It is in the assumption that covert intelligence-gathering will be done by people, some of whom may have had links, knowingly or unknowingly, with terrorism. Jellicoe does me the honour of using my argument on pages 4 and 5 of the report. The words that he uses bear a marked similarity to my written evidence. The argument is that the terrorist's aims, whether in Northern Ireland or in a number of other


places, is normally to force the Government into increasingly repressive legislation particularly against those whom the terrorist seeks to represent. That is a crucial part of the argument.
The philosophy is not new. It goes back many hundreds of years. It has been around in other societies at other times. It was emphasised by Carlos Marighella in writings in the 1950s and 1960s. Many terrorist writings, particularly in relation to the IRA, take their ideas and beliefs from that source. It is worth reading about the aims of terrorism. Carlos Marighella says that:
The armed forces … are mobilised and undertake routine police functions. Even so they find no way to halt guerilla operations, nor to wipe out the revolutionary organisation.
The aim is to make the Government enforce curfews, road blocks, searches and mass arrests. The legislation encourages the arrest of innocent people. I wish to emphasise the evidence given by General Richard Clutterbuck, who said about the terrorist
like all revolutionaries he regards his chief enemy as the liberal reformer.
He believes that the enemy of the paramilitary terrorists is the liberal reformer who protects and defends civil rights.
It is difficult to get the balance right. The Home Secretary spoke about that. However, there are good indications of the level of success. Both Lord Jellicoe and the Home Secretary failed to address themselves to that. I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies. What are the implications? First, there is the attitude of those among whom the terrorists seek to operate. We have convincing evidence that the Irish people feel that they are the targets for the legislation. We know from the backgrounds of those who have been picked up that they are the targets. We are, therefore, alienating them. Their alienation takes different forms. First, it may be passive, in that those who do not actively support terrorist actions nevertheless refuse to co-operate effectively with the security forces.
Secondly, aggrieved people may provide cover for terrorist activities. Thirdly, there may be a willingness to join a terrorist group or one of its front organisations.
There is considerable evidence that that has been happening. Convictions in the Diplock courts show that the majority of offenders are under 25. Most of them have not been convicted before. The evidence is strong that the paramilitary groups on the Republican side are well able to recruit. They argue strongly that those whom they seek to represent have no hope with democratic politics and that there is no hope of their civil rights being defended by the House of Commons. They quote as an example the Prevention or Terrorism Act. It is not the guilty who are picked up but their friends and relatives. A general feeling is encouraged that people cannot trust the police, the security forces or the British Government and at the end of the day the only people who will fight for them are the paramilitary groups on the Republican side.
The statistics show that 5,555 people were arrested between 24 November 1974 and 31 December 1982 under the Act. Of those, 88 per cent. were released without charge. Only 2.1 per cent. were charged with offences under the Act. That says something about Lord Jellicoe's view that general laws should be used to deal with certain cases. The purpose of the Act is to collect information — it has nothing to do with convicting terrorists. The

Act's purpose is to cross-examine people about other people and so gain information. Only 1.5 per cent. are found guilty under the Act. Yet we justify an Act that strikes at the very basis of our civil liberties.
We have legislation — and further legislation now before us—that is failing in its purpose. To some extent it is assisting the paramilitary groups. It offends against the traditions of British democracy.
In paragraph 70 of the report, Lord Jellicoe states
the decision whether to extend detention depends on criteria which are not susceptible of judicial assessment.
In other words, he is saying clearly, and without any attempt to conceal it—it is to his credit that he does not want to conceal it — that it is a political and not a judicial action. If we took that to be the Sakharov case, the distinction is not great. The Russians went in for exclusion on a basis rather different from ours. They justified it on political grounds. We are now doing exactly the same. The reasons may be different but the principle is precisely the same. Reference was made earlier to those arrested in Zimbabwe and then, incidentally, rearrested.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend because he is making an important speech, but is it right for the Home Secretary to sit looking at something to do with football, which has nothing to do with the business of the House? The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly is not listening to the speeches being made. There has always been a clear understanding in the House that hon. Members, especially Ministers, should be courteous to each other.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order on which I need to rule.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I suspect that the Home Secretary's concern about civil liberties has never been so great that he would listen to detailed arguments of this type. That is evidenced in some of the legislation that he is prepared to bring forward. The arguments about the Act are detailed and should be dealt with seriously. I would be encouraged if the Home Secretary would do that.
Lord Jellicoe pointed out that we are involved in political legislation. We are saying that there are now acts which should no longer be dealt with by the judiciary but by Ministers of State. In the Zimbabwe case those involved were rearrested after having been found not guilty. Under the present Act a person was found not guilty by the court but was immediately subject to an exclusion order. If we are to be serious about our protection of civil liberties, we should look to that aspect because we have lost the principle. The reasons may be different and there may be different emphasis on those reasons, but the principle has been lost. That is what makes the Act such a dangerous one.
I ask hon. Members to consider, regardless of their political affiliations, what I am about to say. If during the 1950s or 1960s someone had come to Britain and predicted that in a few years' time Britain would be going in for internal exile in the form of exclusion orders from one part of the United Kingdom to another—which we have not had, as Sam Silkin said when he was Attorney-General, since the Middle Ages — giving no reasons to the person, giving him no right to know the evidence against him, giving no right to cross-examine those who had


collected the evidence, giving no right to a trial or any public or formal hearing, giving no right to know on what basis any representation had been successful or unsuccessful either before, during or alter the exclusion, giving no right of appeal to a court or tribunal, he would have been scoffed at. In addition to this picture of a futuristic Britain painted perhaps by an hon. Member in 1950s or 1960s, if he had gone on to say that this power would be given not only to the police but to immigration officers, that they would have the power to detain for up to seven days without charge and perhaps without the suspect being able to see a solicitor or friends and relatives, and that the suspect could be finger-printed and those fingerprints and records could be kept on file even though no charge was laid, again, would he not have been scoffed at? People would have said that that was not a picture of Britain in a few years' time but a picture of an authoritarian state. But that is Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. The Bill is intensely dangerous and the House has a duty in this matter going far beyond party loyalty and going deep into the traditions and beliefs of the House that have been hard fought for over the years.
Civil liberties are essential to any democracy. Tonight, we are eroding them yet again. The term "temporary" has been taken out of the title of the Bill. We started off reviewing the original Act every six months. The period was then extended to 12 months. Now it is five years. We shall be re-enacting it in five years' time unless we have the wit to repeal it, as I hope we shall.
On the record of the past 10 or 15 years, we shall continue on the track that we have been following. The Opposition say that it is time to look again and to recognise that we cannot beat terrorism by eroding the civil liberties which are the target of the terrorists' attack. If we are true to that and true to our traditions and beliefs in the House, we shall vote against the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): We have had a very interesting debate and I am grateful to all those who have made constructive contributions. I shall do my best to reply to the various points made, but it might he appropriate if I made one or two general points first.
What happened in Beirut yesterday is a dreadful reminder of the foul and bestial deeds that twisted people with twisted minds are prepared to perpetrate for political ends. Of course, we should never let our horror at such events warp our judgment. In a free society such as ours we should always be on our guard lest in our determination to beat the bombers we do their job for them and destroy freedom itself.
On the other hand, few would deny that sometimes individual rights have to be curtailed to protect more fundamental rights and to protect the slate itself. Few would deny that sometimes there is a place for exceptional powers. A balance has to be struck between the need to protect the public on the one hand and the need to safeguard the rights and freedom of the individual on the other.
I think that we have found the right balance in the Bill. While its primary purpose is the protection of the public from the violence of terrorist fanatics, it also seeks to ensure that those who are subject to exceptional powers are fairly and justly treated.
I emphasise, because it seems to have been forgotten during the debate, that the Bill gives far more protection to those who might be detained or made subject to exclusion orders than the Opposition apparently thought necessary when they were in office and introduced the original measures.
I do not think that I shall be alone in saying that the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was extraordinary. It might be better to draw a veil over it. I am sorry that he was out of the Chamber when the debate came to its drarnatic climax. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—he has been the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend until now, though I wonder whether he still will be—tried to come to the right hon. Gentleman's rescue by saying that we all had to recognise that obviously the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not believe a word of what he was saying, but he had to say it because of a decision made by the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the time, but I can tell him that that is precisely what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. and learned Gentleman has perverted the truth. He has used a form of words which convey the very opposite of what I said. He should apologise.

Mr. Waddington: I shall do better than that. I shall read Hansard tomorrow, and I ask the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to read it as well.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook got himself into a complete tangle, and he did that as a result of trying to be too subtle by half. He picked out a few words at the beginning of paragraph 55 of the Jellicoe report and constructed round them the proposition that Lord Jellicoe himself had doubted the value of these powers of arrest and detention. It took only a few moments to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the conclusions reached by Lord Jellicoe when he studied the matter.
In paragraph 62 the noble Lord states quite categorically:
I believe that the 48-hour-plus-five-days power under section 12 should remain.
In paragraph 65 he goes on to say that
if the power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped in dealing with terrorists."—
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook latched on to the first sentence of paragraph 55 and hoped that we would all close our eyes to what ensued in the following paragraphs.
The right hon. Gentleman then pointed to the fact that a large number of people who had been made subject to exclusion orders had not in the event been charged. One of the objects of the power is to exclude suspected terrorists who cannot be prosecuted because the evidence against them is of such a delicate nature that it cannot be presented in court, not least because to reveal it to the accused would almost certainly be to reveal to him the source of the information and put at risk the life of the person concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that 88 per cent. of those detained were not charged. He did not mention that a very large proportion of those detained were detained under port powers. He ignored entirely paragraph 139 of the report in which Lord Jellicoe said that the primary purpose of the port powers was


to deter those involved in terrorism from attempting to enter a particular territory, by demonstrating that they are likely to be caught. The value of a deterrent power is not demonstrated by the numbers apprehended.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) deserves the thanks of the House for directing our attention to a large number of extremely important matters. He asked whether it was right that the clause 12 powers were not to extend to other than Northern Ireland or international terrorism. That is right. The reason why that is in the Bill is that Lord Jellicoe concluded that no domestic group had so far been seen as posing a threat to public safety which was at all comparable to that posed by Irish or international groups. The theme of the Bill is to go no further than was proposed by Lord Jellicoe. We believe that Lord Jellicoe has got the balance right and that we should not take powers unless they are essential.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said that exclusion orders could not be made in respect of international terrorism. Again he was entirely right. The reason for that is again contained in the Jellicoe report. We consider that there are adequate powers under the Immigration Act and particularly in section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 to deport someone on the ground that his presence in this country is not conducive to the public good.
Paragraph 41 of the report indicates that, at present, an extension of detention does not have to be made in writing under the Secretary of State's own hand. My right hon. Friend was quite right to say that it would be wrong if that a power as important as this was not exercised by the Secretary of State himself. I am glad to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that we accept the recommendation made by Lord Jellicoe at paragraph 73 of the report.
My right hon. Friend said that he was concerned about the definition of terrorism in clause 14(1) and its effect on extradition proceedings. I have to tell him that that definition has stood the test of time and has not been exploited in the courts to undermine the effectiveness of earlier Acts. Furthermore, I believe that the definition in the Bill can make little or no impact on extradition cases, as such cases involve the allegation of a specific offence.
The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an interesting speech. He told us that the Liberal party supports the need for the Bill but will seek to make changes in Committee. We will await news of those proposed changes with interest. The hon. Member mentioned two of them in his speech. He said that he would like the Act to have a life of three rather than five years, and that he would like exclusion orders to last for two years rather than three. As the Bill reduces the life of exclusion orders from 20 years to three years, it may be considered that in his second point the hon. Gentleman is merely nit-picking and trying to find a battlefield where none exists. He says that the Liberal party does not like the idea of 20 years. He says that it does not like three years either, but that it would settle for two.
The hon. Gentleman expressed disappointment that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill had not had its First Reading before this debate. There is nothing sinister in that. Although I must not disclose in detail the terms of that Bill, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to carry out the recommendations contained in paragraphs 17, 21, 22, 23 and 25 of Lord Jellicoe's report.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on his eloquent speech. It was a pleasure to listen to him. He was right to remind us that any erosion of personal liberty can be justified only by exceptional circumstances. He had obviously tried to strike a balance in his own mind—as every Member of this House must try to do—before deciding to support the Bill.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that there can be good intelligence without the existence of admissible evidence. How right he was. There can be good intelligence that cannot be revealed to the suspect without imperilling the safety of others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said that Ulster should not be used as a dustbin for terrorists. He referred to the recent report of the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, according to which the exclusion powers were being used to discriminate against the people of Northern Ireland. We must get this absolutely clear.
I agree that under these powers more people are excluded from Britain than from Northern Ireland. However, terrorist attacks in Britain inevitably tend to be committed by people who have travelled here from Ireland, while those that take place in Northern Ireland tend to be committed by those already living there, or by those who have come over the border from the South.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) made an interesting speech in which she made quite clear her objection to the power of proscription, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I quite understand what both of them had to say but, with respect, they both tended to ignore the affront that would be caused to others if people could once again flaunt their support for terrorist causes.
The hon. Member for Peckham seemed to ignore the fact that clause 14(10) requires an affirmative resolution of the House before any additional body can be added to the list of proscribed organisations in the schedule. At one point she seemed to suggest that clause 11 made it an offence for a person to refuse to incriminate himself. That is not so. Clause 11 states:
If a person who has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance—
(a) in preventing the commission by any other person of an act of terrorism".
Thus, it does not refer to an act of terrorism by the person being questioned.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough spoke of his belief in the need for a united Ireland and for political solutions to many of the problems. One always sympathises with those who want peaceful solutions to problems, but not many hon. Members would go along with him in saying that terrorists are deeply convinced political animals who believe they are fighting for a just cause — [Interruption.] They are certainly animals. Everyone is entitled to struggle to achieve peacefully his political ambition, but Members of Parliament of all people should make it plain to all that they could never countenance the use of force to obtain political ends.

Mr. Hume: Why then do the Government support a policy in Northern Ireland under which those known to have committed terrorist crimes are given immunity because they give evidence against their accomplices?

Mr. Waddington: Under English law it has always been possible for the prosecution to allow someone to turn Queen's evidence and so give evidence for the Crown. It is for the state to decide where the balance of advantage lies. It is not a power to be used lightly, but if scores of lives could be saved by giving one man immunity from prosecution and by putting many others in prison, it is obvious what the prosecuting authorities should do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) rightly pointed out that there is growing evidence of terrorists in one country supporting terrorists in other countries. He called upon us to see that there was better intelligence about terrorist agencies throughout the world. He wanted us to ensure that our agencies were sufficiently well staffed to do their work. He wanted to know whether there was enough international intelligence sharing. This is not the time to reply to the various points. They are good points, and obviously they will be read by many and will be borne in mind. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that it is our job to make it more difficult for terrorists to get hold of weapons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) pointed out — I think he was answering the hon. Member for Hillsborough—that no one is opposed to dreams, but most hon. Members are opposed to the use of violence to achieve those dreams. He was correct in saying that there was nothing arbitrary about the powers of arrest in the Bill. A great deal of loose language has been used. These are powers that can be exercised only on reasonable suspicion.
My hon. Friend said that what the Government resented was not the fact that the Opposition had changed their mind—anybody is entitled to change his mind—but the fact that not once during this debate had anybody on the Opposition Benches who previously voted for these measures explained why he had changed his mind.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the Bill represents a fundamental change in the criminal law, in that in the past arrests occurred on the ground of evidence, whereas arrest or detention can occur now merely on the ground of reasonable suspicion? Reasonable suspicion is now sought to replace the doctrine of reasonable evidence for the cause of arrest.

Mr. Waddington: The Bill gives the Executive exceptional powers, and no one doubts that for one moment. I was referring a moment ago to the fact that for nine years the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was perfectly happy for his Government and other Governments to have these exceptional powers. Now he trots along to the House and without giving us any explanation says that he has had a great change of mind. The hon. Member for Hillsborough let the cat out of the bag. The Labour Government in office recognised the need for emergency powers, and the Labour Governments of 1974 and 1976 legislated accordingly. Each year thereafter the Labour Government invited Parliament to renew the powers, and Parliament did so.
In 1983 the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook invited his colleagues to vote in the opposite direction when the terrorist menace was no less than it had been and when 1982 had been the worst year since 1974 for deaths— there were 11 in all—as a result of terrorist acts.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I say with the utmost respect to the Minister that he has not answered the

question about reasonable suspicion. Is he attributing to that a subjective reasonable suspicion or an objective reasonable suspicion? He is introducing a new concept of law into our system. Can the Minister answer my hon. Friend?

Mr. Waddington: The concept is not new. It has existed in this form since it was introduced by a Labour Government in 1974. There was neither rhyme nor reason for this sudden change of front by the right hon. Gentleman, just as there is neither rhyme nor reason for the amendment.

Mr. Soley: Instead of the Minister pursuing this ridiculous charge, which we have dealt with over and over again, will he give some time in the remaining minutes available to discuss how the Bill will prevent terrorism? Let us have some evidence and deal with the serious points of alienation and the rest to which he has not addressed himself.

Mr. Waddington: The problem with any measures such as these is that it is not possible to prove how many people have been deterred by the existence of the powers in them. However, there can be no doubt that Lord Jellicoe concluded that the powers were necessary. I have quoted chapter and verse to Opposition Members. They do not like it.
It is possible to argue that, if one takes exceptional powers, they can be used as a recruiting agent for terrorists. However, there is an equally strong argument that many terrorists will be deterred from entering Britain if they must face controls at the ports. Many terrorists will be deterred from committing criminal and terrorist acts if they are detained under these powers.

Mr. Soley: The Minister is avoiding my questions again and it is clear that he has not taken account of what I have said. I gave two examples of how an assessment of whether the Act works could be made. He has not even thought about them. Will he give the House some hope that he will at least consider them? If he does not, we shall have good reason to believe that, far from preventing terrorism, the Bill will play into the hands of paramilitary groups.

Mr. Waddington: Once again I must invite the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Jellicoe report, which provides ample support for the reintroduction of a Bill which until recently Opposition Members thought necessary for the protection of the public. The Oppostion's volte face was a sickening and humiliating surrender by the so-called moderates in the Labour party to the extremists. The amendment is of the same order.
If the Bill were not passed, some inconvenience suffered by people who travel between Ireland and the mainland would be removed, but the difficulty of the police in identifying and catching terrorists and preventing them from carrying out their heinous acts would be greatly increased. If the Bill were not passed and there were no security controls at the ports, people could come and go at will. They would include active terrorists. There would be public anger when it was realised that the Secretary of State could not prevent the most undersirable and vicious creatures travelling freely from one part of the United Kingdom to another. There would be nothing short of outrage when members of the IRA started to flaunt themselves in public, hold meetings and cadge coppers to buy bombs with which to blow up people.
There is no doubt that the police want these powers which have helped them significantly in their fight against terrorism. The police deserve our good wishes for their work. It is more important, however, that they receive the practical support which the Bill will provide. We have not yet succeeded in stamping out terrorism. While the threat remains it is our duty to the British people to do all that we reasonably can to meet it. The Opposition would have us make it easier for the terrorists. We shall carry out our duty and make it as difficult as possible.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 302.

Division No. 45]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hardy, Peter


Alton, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Anderson, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Ashton, Joe
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Home Robertson, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoyle, Douglas


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bell, Stuart
Hume, John


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Leighton, Ronald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Canavan, Dennis
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Thomas
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Robert
Loyden, Edward


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McCartney, Hugh


Cohen, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Coleman, Donald
McGuire, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKelvey, William


Corbett, Robin
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McWilliam, John


Craigen, J. M.
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Maxton, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Douglas, Dick
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
Pike, Peter


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Radice, Giles


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Redmond, M.


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foulkes, George
Robertson, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rogers, Allan


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rooker, J. W.


George, Bruce
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rowlands, Ted





Sedgemore, Brian
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Sheerman, Barry
Tinn, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wareing, Robert


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Welsh, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
White, James


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stott, Roger



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. James Hamilton and 


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
 Mr. Harry Cowans.




NOES


Ancram, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashdown, Paddy
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Freeman, Roger


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Freud, Clement


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Galley, Roy


Baldry, Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beggs, Roy
Goodlad, Alastair


Beith, A. J.
Gorst, John


Bellingham, Henry
Grant, Sir Anthony


Best, Keith
Gregory, Conal


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hannam, John


Browne, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruce, Malcolm
Harris, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Harvey, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, J.


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Cartwright, John
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Hickmet, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hirst, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Coombs, Simon
Holt, Richard


Cope, John
Hooson, Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Crouch, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint


Dorrell, Stephen
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dover, Denshore
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Hunter, Andrew


Emery, Sir Peter
Jackson, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Fallon, Michael
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Farr, John
Johnston, Russell


Favell, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine






Kennedy, Charles
Penhaligon, David


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Key, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Porter, Barry


King, Rt Hon Tom
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Powell, William (Corby)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Powley, John


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Knowles, Michael
Price, Sir David


Knox, David
Proctor, K Harvey


Lang, Ian
Raffan, Keith


Latham, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lee, John (Pendle)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lester, Jim
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lightbown, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lilley, Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Ryder, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lyell, Nicholas
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCrea, Rev William
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCusker, Harold
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


McQuarrie, Albert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Maginnis, Ken
Speller, Tony


Major, John
Spencer, D.


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, John


Marlow, Antony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Mather, Carol
Stern, Michael


Maude, Francis
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tapsell, Peter


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Taylor, John (Strangford)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Terlezki, Stefan


Moore, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nicholson, J.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Norris, Steven
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Philip
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wall, Sir Patrick


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wallace, James


Paisley, Rev Ian
Waller, Gary


Parris, Matthew
Ward, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watson, John





Watts, John
Woodcock, Michael


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wheeler, John
Yeo, Tim


Whitfield, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Raymond
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wilkinson, John



Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Wolfson, Mark
 Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Wood, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 46.

Division No. 46]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Tom
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Ashdown, Paddy
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Freeman, Roger


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Freud, Clement


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Galley, Roy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Baldry, Anthony
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Beggs, Roy
Gorst, John


Beith, A. J.
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Gregory, Conal


Best, Keith
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hannam, John


Browne, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruce, Malcolm
Harris, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Harvey, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, J.


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hirst, Michael


Cope, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hooson, Tom


Crouch, David
Howard, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dover, Denshore
Howells, Geraint


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Farr, John
Jackson, Robert


Favell, Anthony
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Johnston, Russell


Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)






Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Norris, Steven


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Oppenheim, Philip


Key, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Paisley, Rev Ian


Kirkwood, Archibald
Parris, Matthew


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knowles, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Knox, David
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Lang, Ian
Pollock, Alexander


Latham, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Lawrence, Ivan
Powley, John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Price, Sir David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lester, Jim
Raffan, Keith


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Lightbown, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Lilley, Peter
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lord, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lyell, Nicholas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McCrea, Rev William
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McCusker, Harold
Rowe, Andrew


Macfarlane, Neil
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Ryder, Richard


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Maclean, David John,
Sayeed, Jonathan


Maclennan, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Silvester, Fred


Maginnis, Ken
Sims, Roger


Major, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maples, John
Speed, Keith


Marland, Paul
Speller, Tony


Marlow, Antony
Spencer, D.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mather, Carol
Squire, Robin


Maude, Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Meadowcroft, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mellor, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Merchant, Piers
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Peter


Moore, John
Taylor, John (Strangford)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moynihan, Hon C.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Terlezki, Stefan


Neale, Gerrard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, J.
Thurnham, Peter





Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Whitfield, John


Tracey, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilkinson, John


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, David
Wood, Timothy


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Michael


Walden, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wall, Sir Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Wallace, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waller, Gary
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ward, John



Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watson, John
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Watts, John
Mr. Tim Sainsbury


Wells, John (Maidstone)





NOES


Alton, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ashton, Joe
Loyden, Edward


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
McKelvey, William


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Barron, Kevin
Meacher, Michael


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Mikardo, Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
Nellist, David


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Parry, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Pavitt, Laurie


Canavan, Dennis
Pike, Peter


Clay, Robert
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cohen, Harry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Corbyn, Jeremy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Rogers, Allan


Dixon, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Eastham, Ken
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fatchett, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wareing, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Wigley, Dafydd


Hume, John



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Mr. Martin Flannery and


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Andrew Bennett

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF TERRORISM [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal and re-enact with amendments the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with—

(a) the control of travel into and out of any part of the United Kingdom, including the provision of facilities for examining officers; and
(b) the making of exclusion orders and the removal from any part of the United Kingdom of persons subject to such orders.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — Hedgerow Protection and Conservation

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the great concern about the continuing and expensive destruction of the British landscape. There is widespread resentment that money should continue to be lavished in support of destruction. Although the Minister no longer gives grants for the removal of hedgerows, if the removal is part of a wider scheme of so-called improvement, grant is provided.
Just when more and more people are experiencing enforced leisure, the countryside, which could give them free comfort and enjoyment, is being made less attractive. It is right for the House, on the first day after the long recess, to consider priorities.
The countryside could provide enjoyment and comfort for the unemployed. The Minister should be aware that the countryside is also an important tourist attraction which for economic and aesthetic reasons, should not be lightly destroyed. The destruction is alarming. Thousands of miles of hedgerows have gone in recent years. In most counties the removal has been extensive. In Huntingdonshire three quarters of the hedgerows have gone since the war. In every English county residents can point to the spot where once there an ancient hedgerow. In many parishes only a few hedgerows remain.
Only today we heard of the contemptuous destruction of a hedgerow near Romney Marsh by a farmer who should know better because he is a public representative. I refer to Mr. Boulden of Aldington. Romney:Marsh was once an area rich in hedgerows. Once it was beautiful, but it is now more barren than it should be.
Much publicity was given a few months ago to another Kent farmer named Batchelor who appeared to believe that hedgerows and wildlife should be destroyed, yet, as television series frequently suggest, and one currently about the hedgerows may demonstrate, such features provide shelter and habitat for many species.
The Minister is aware of the position. A catalogue of destruction is available in his Department. The Minister should also be aware that the community believes that the environment should not be ravaged and that the removal of attractive features which make our lowland areas as important in environment and aesthetic terms as our more majestic uplands should be prevented.
Because of the destruction of hedgerows I presented a Bill last year which I believed would be acceptable. The Bill would have guaranteed the survival of many important hedgerows—important in local terms and important in retaining a skeleton of hedgerow conservation throughout England and Wales. I believed then, as I do today, that most farmers would welcome such a measure. I do not believe that the National Farmers Union was opposed to it, but the Government blocked it. Perhaps they believed that we could rely on the voluntary spirit. Many landowners and farmers are responsible people, but a substantial minority are not concerned and care little for the general interest. They care not at all about the environment in which their neighbours and themselves live. That lack of care has been revealed in recent months by the frequent and contemptuous disdain for the National Farmers Union straw burning code. I refer to that in

passing as an illustration of irresponsibility. The fatal consequences of that disdain were the destruction of hundreds of miles of hedgerows. We must respond to a situation in which that disdainful irresponsibility can disregard any consideration other than that of personal profit. There are 6 million tonnes of wheat and 1½ million tonnes of barley in surplus in the EC. Therefore, we must be right to begin to question our priorities.
The Government were careless in their blocking of my Bill last year. Their attitude was abysmal—not least because of their reliance upon a voluntary response that has already proved grossly deficient. The Government imagine that ratification of the Berne convention governing the protection of certain species is all that they need to do. But the habitat on which those species depend is also at risk and deserves a measure of protection.
The other day I was shown a photograph of a member of the Yorkshire Wildlife 'Trust deliberately breaking the law by pulling up a protected wild flower. He could be fined severely for that. Yet the day after he deliberately committed that offence, the landowner — perhaps subsidised by taxpayers' funds—destroyed the whole of the area in which the wild flower grew. The landowner could not be prosecuted, but the individual naturalist could be. He took such action to focus attention on the problem —attention that I am seeking to command through this debate tonight.
We must insist that taxpayers' money does not obliterate the attractions of our countryside. During the past 20 years no less than £1,500 million has been given from public funds towards the destruction of our countryside—not for the support of production; not for the subsidy of farmers, but in direct grant towards changing the appearance of our environment. It has gone too far.
Since my Bill was blocked there have been certain developments. I hope that the Minister will comment upon them. Last year many people wrote to me about the Government's blocking of my Bill. Some were from Norfolk, who complained about large areas of featureless earth in their county. Some were from Derbyshire, who felt that hedgerow removal should be governed by planning consent. Children wrote to me from all parts of the country, including a boy from Weymouth who had walked along eight miles in his locality where the hedgerows had been removed. People from the Naturalist Trust in Worcester wrote to me about the removal of 7½ miles of hedgerow on a single farm.
The concern I felt extended from Kent in the south-east to virtually every county north of that. People who express abhorrence of the destruction are sometimes well publicised but, more frequently, the destruction is locally regretted and there is little impact in the media.
Mr. Seymour of Methley in West Yorkshire wrote to me about the Methley Enclosure Act of 1786, which required that hedgerows should be maintained. I recall that the Wath upon Dearne Enclosure Act—I live and was born there—has the same requirement. I studied other such Acts and discovered that the vast majority required the perpetual maintenance of hedgerows. I studied Enclosure Acts in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Durham. They all confirmed the requirement for fencing by quickset. I contacted my local authorities— South Yorkshire county and Rotherham borough councils. The Rotherham borough council, an efficient authority, was immediately helpful and drew my attention to the case


of Garnet v. Pratt in June 1926. The plaintiff succeeded in his case against a neighbour who had removed a boundary required by enclosure legislation in Hawes in North Yorkshire. That case is relevant. It is clear that, as a result of the case, the law still stands.
When I raised the matter in the House shortly afterwards, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said that the perpetual requirement no longer applies, but even Ministers cannot make laws off-the-cuff at the Dispatch Box. The law still applies. It applies in Chester-le-Street, in Durham, and in a number of parishes that I have examined in Lincolnshire. It is interesting that in the barley areas of South Hykeham, Tetney and Kirton in Lindsey, the requirement is tighter than it is in most other parts of the country. In Kirton in Lindsey 4,600 acres were enclosed in 1793. The Act laid down that there should be kept in perpetuity good thriving fences planted with quicksets of white thorns and guarded for ever on both sides with good posts.
Those Acts have never been repealed. The whole basis of the Government's approach has been to suggest that the Acts can be ignored. I do not believe that we can make fish and fowl of legislation. After the Minister suggested that the legislation no longer applied, I looked at the Enclosure Act for Dalton in my constituency, passed in 1797. That Act required fences to be composed of quicksets and for ever to be maintained, as it did for my own township of Wath upon Dearne. Those requirements are usual and so I was rather surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary's response. I continued to correspond with Ministers, and Lord Ferrers wrote to me to say that:
It is the responsibility of the applicant for grant to ensure that work on which he wishes to claim grant complies with all the relevant statutory requirements.
He added that claimants apparently sign to the effect that they have met this responsibility. Lord Ferrers went on to say that if a declaration had been wrongly signed, if a hedgerow or wall required by the Enclosure Act had, for example, been cleared—and cleared with the assistance of grant as many of them have been—the Minister would have to consider whether to withhold the grant in the case of an application or, if the grant had been already paid, to recover it. I do not suggest that the Minister can go around recovering hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money which has been spent illegally. I accept that that would be difficult and that the National Farmers Union would be cross and the Conservative party might suffer accordingly. I suggest that the Minister cannot allow such an unsatisfactory position to be maintained. Some farmers may pale at the prospect of local environmentalists doing their homework and bringing forward prosecutions. There are those who would welcome such an upheaval. I would welcome a more sensible approach than the present one. We should try to avoid bringing thousands of farmers to litigation. It could come to that if the Government maintain their negligent approach.
The Government should reconsider their attitude to the perfectly reasonable Bill that I presented last year. They should take the opportunity of giving that Bill, which was generally wanted, a fair wind and rectify the ridiculous anomaly of the Enclosure Acts, which could bring considerable headaches to farmers and to the Government. The Government should take another look at that Bill. The environmentalists, those who are concerned with our

countryside and landscape, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, would welcome the Bill. The Government should be prepared to accept an opportunity to correct this enclosure anomaly.
If the Minister is not prepared to take suitable steps he should understand that the law is there and that the case of Garnet v. Pratt of 1926, which is the most recent case available, is relevant and points the way for the conservationists of Britain to take some action to protect our landscape, a protection that the Government have inadequately considered.
There is another question that I should like to ask. I am advised by reputable lawyers that existing legislation does not prevent local authorities from deciding that a hedgerow can be protected by a tree preservation order—perhaps the protection of a series of hawthorn trees; whether they are interlaced or not makes no difference. If local authorities have a particularly attractive hedgerow in mind, they should be able to protect it. The Department has never been keen and has never suggested that local authorities should make such orders, but the Minister should make it clear to the House that they have the opportunity to do so. If the law allows protection, the Minister should confirm that local authorities may have the capacity to provide it.
The Minister is certainly aware that lots of money has been spent to ensure the vast destruction of our landscape, and he should certainly be aware that lots of the money has not been spent lawfully. I hope that he will now be made increasingly aware that the destruction that has taken place in the past few years is regarded as shameful. Hundreds of thousands of people in this country are beginning to resent it and to say that something should be done about it.
I believe that we have got our priorities all wrong. In my area, only 521 of nearly 3,500 school leavers this summer have jobs. Our industries are devastated and our employment opportunities are weakened, yet the Government can continue to lavish grants for the destruction of that which may be the only cause of comfort and consolation for the young people in my and other industrial areas of this country.
Perhaps at this time, more than at any other since the war, we need to try to provide some people with that which may be free. I accept that the spirit of Conservative Members may disregard and have contempt for that view, because the god that they serve is profit. Perhaps they prefer to see irresponsible individual farmers serving the gods of excess production and excess profit, even though it may diminish the quality of life for the rest of the country. But that quality has to be conserved and the Government must have some concern for it. I trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that the Government—perhaps untypically—are prepared to change their approach and to afford a higher priority to the retention of a decent environment in our once beautiful country.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for giving us the opportunity to debate the important subject of hedgerow protection and conservation. Many people outside the House are interested in the subject.
A previous Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said in the House several years ago that he was a hedge enthusiast. The hon. Member for Wentworth is obviously one also. His record on the subject is well known.
I, too, fully recognise the value of hedgerows and I am keen to see them retained as an essential feature of the rural landscape. But the question that we need to consider is how best that desirable object can be achieved. The hon. Gentleman has given me some interesting facts and pointers. He has obviously done his research and has had access to information. I note what he has said and will try to reply to all his points in the fullness of time, but time may prevent a detailed scrutiny of some of them tonight.
Two years ago, during the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, several of the hon. Member's colleagues sponsored amendments intended to bring hedgerows within the statutory control system. The hon. Member, who was a member of that Committee, urged an element of statutory protection for important hedgerows. The explanations were developed in some detail on 18 June 1981 and time forbids a close scrutiny of the reasons.
Later, some 18 months ago, the hon. Member for Wentworth presented his Hedgerows Bill, the purpose of which was to provide statutory protection for all hedgerows on agricultural land which followed parish boundaries, farm boundaries, footpaths, bridleways, byways and public roads, thus affecting many hundreds of miles of hedges. I explained to the hon. Member in my letter of 14 May 1982 why the Government could not support that Bill, and why we favoured instead the positive approach of voluntary co-operation with and encouragement to the farming community.
The encouragement I have referred to takes a number of forms. First, there is the valuable work of the Countryside Commission in promoting conservation by the farming community. The 10 farms in their demonstration farms project provide practical demonstrations to farmers and others of how profitable farming can be carried out with due regard to conservation of essential landscape features, including hedgerows.
This message is also put across to farmers and landowners by means of advice in the Countryside Commission handbook, published by the Countryside Commission jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. There are about half a million miles of hedges in Britain, and the hedge management leaf explains their importance to agriculture, wildlife and the visual quality of the countryside.
It also sets out the many useful purposes that hedged serve—
providing a stock-proof barrier, shelter for stock, land character, wildlife habitat, a deterrent to trespass and screening for eyesores.
It explains in detail the best management techniques.
Much advice to farmers is given through the services of the agricultural development advisory service and I have been interested to read the colourful booklet it published last year on "Farming and the Countryside That booklet emphasises the need to retain in particular
thick old hedges especially those with 4 or more woody species per 30 metres",

and points out that, even in arable areas, there is litle economic advantage to be gained from field sizes in excess of 20 hectares.
MAFF grants for the removal of hedgerows were, of course, stopped in 1974, and MAFF grants are available for hedge-laying to encourage better management.

Mr. Hardy: I am glad to have the Minister's agreement, but he does not seem fully to agree with me that grants in respect of hedgerow destruction alone are not provided but that grants in respect of hedgerow destruction as part of a wider scheme of so called improvement are still available.

Mr. Macfarlane: But surely the most important feature is that grants for the removal of hedgerows were stopped almost 10 years ago and that grants are available for hedge laying to encourage better management. That seems to me to be an important dimension.
The Countryside Commission has recently introduced a new grants structure which is intended to make support for landscape conservation work more widely available. The new landscape conservation grants will be available for the restoration of hedgerows, hedge banks and stone walls. In particular the Commission has said that the grants will be available for restoration or rejuvenation of ancient hedgerows visually important in the landscape, and priority will be given to hedge banks which form such an important part of the traditional countryside scene, especially in western Britain.
 my letter of 14 May 1982, to which I have rred, that both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Countryside Commission believe that the rate of removal  declined substantially since the 1960s and early. We recognise that the extent of landscape change, including the rate of hedgerow removal, is a matter of bate, and this has highlighted the inadequacy of the which many of the assertions about country rest. At the outset of his remarks, the hon.uoted some facts, statistics and details. welcome some further information on We have therefore decided, after  Departments and bodies, to Countryside Commission researchdeficiency of statistical evidence.assist in  to of the effectiveness of  the need for possible changes,rtment has recently inviteders for this bjective of which is to obtain stically reliable on the current distribution and extent of featurelandscape importance in the countryside in England and Wales. This will include hedgerows, dry stone) dgerow banks.
The hon. Member instance of a farmer in Kent who earlier  national notoriety as a result of his destruction  hedgerows in an area of outstanding natural be  was a disgraceful event and one which was the subject of a court action. In that case the farmer concerned disregarded certain tree-preservation orders for which he was summoned and found guilty. I mention this because it illustrates the shortcomings of a system of statutory controls. Although the Kent farmer paid the penalty, the trees have been removed and there is no way in which they can be replaced except by saplings, which will not mature for several years. A voluntary conservation system, by which farmers


are encouraged to consider the voluntary conservation implications before taking action, must stand more chance of success. But I must explain that the in Kent was exceptional and attracted a great deal of publicity for that very reason. The work of the majority of farmers and landowners who pay proper regard to conservation in their farming operations goes largely unreported.

Dr. John Marek: Will hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macfarlane: Many SSSIs will contain hedgerows of importance in ecological terms, and those are covered by the new SSSI procedures introduced.by the Act.

Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macfarlane: I hope to deal with several more of the points that have been raised. If the hon. Gentleman has a detailed point to make, perhaps  write to me. I should like to give way, but I feel that I ought to plough on.
The Act also includes provision for management agreements, and many of these could of course cover areas of land which include the most valuable hedgerows. Some old hedges will be associated with green lanes, which by the generally-accepted definition are rights of way bounded on both sides by hedges, walls or other boundary features. Although we did not include in the Act specific provisions covering green lanes we hope, as  my Department's circular 32/81, that  the legislative changes introduced on the plough rights of way will assist in their preservation

Mr. Hardy: Until the three-month  removed, it will be dangerous to suggest hedgerow should be proposed as an SSSI

Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of that
The hon. Member has referred to  that some of the straw and stubble burning  has had on hedgerows. He willGovernment are most concerned  my right hon. Friend the Minister of  and Food is looking into this 
The hon. Member for  made  interesting comments. Perhaps  ble to take, the, matter further in correspondence  mation  has gathered and the advice from quarters is always of interest, of course conany point that he wishes  he can give  detailed information which  supports his point of view, I will have the  into further.
I referred earlier to the  advice available to farmers and the methods  is given. I have been interested to read the  Commission's first five year programme of  the countryside, which it has recently published. The commission fully

recognises that its primary concern in the lowlands is the pressure for agricultural change. It goes on to say that its approach hinges on persuading farmers and landowners to take conservation account in their farm plans and everyday management. They also emphasise the availability of grant-aid for conserving important landscape features, for management agreements, and for the employment of countryside advisers by suitable public and voluntary bodies to give advice on conservation to farmers and landowners. Advice on retention of hedges, as part of an integrated approach which takes into account the whole range of landscape features and wildlife habitats, will form an essential part of the voluntary approach which we see to be the best way forward. It is not the only way, and many points have been made this evening that I should like to consider before communicating with the hon. Gentleman in due course.
We certainly have an open mind on many of these issues, and I believe that the debate will have served a very useful purpoe that it will be widely read and understood. The hon. Gentleman's record over the years on this issue is constructive and in many respects quite convincing.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has pointed out that many farmers have apparently been breaking the enclosure Acts. Will the Minister make it quite clear that he believes in law and order, and that the Government will take action to deal with the matter?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give an immediate assurance to the hon. Gentleman. Of course I believe in the concept of law and order, but I want to find out exactly what is the background to the evidence produced this evening. I have given the House an assurance that we shall have the matter looked at further.
The debate has been useful. I am sorry that we cannot go into the matter further. However, the hon. Member for Wentworth has raised many points on which I should like to correspond further with him.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There is still a minute left in which to speak.

Dr. Marek: If the Minister is not prepared to take any statutory action for the retention of hedgerows, will he tighten up the regulations so that grants for the removal of hedgerows are given only when there is a great rather than improvement of land? If this tightening——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

.Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.